Praise for m43 lenses and speculation on the future

[RAH]

There's an interesting video praising m43 lenses, etc, here:

I think it's odd that the word "defraction" was never used, but if they don't care, then neither do I.
Edit: but with FF cameras, I suppose the aperture can get pretty small before you get defraction...

 

[ac12]

They keep repeating that crazy FF equivalent aperture nonsense.
I'm about exposure, that FF equivalence is totally not relevant to me.
That Olympus 300/4 will need a FF 600/4, to get the same exposure setting, not a 600/8.

 

[Aristophanes]

They keep repeating that crazy FF equivalent aperture nonsense.
I'm about exposure, that FF equivalence is totally not relevant to me.
That Olympus 300/4 will need a FF 600/4, to get the same exposure setting, not a 600/8.

They said both. Yes to you for exposure control. Yes to them for DOF and diffraction aesthetic, composition, and quality control.

 

[RAH]

They keep repeating that crazy FF equivalent aperture nonsense.
I'm about exposure, that FF equivalence is totally not relevant to me.
That Olympus 300/4 will need a FF 600/4, to get the same exposure setting, not a 600/8.

I don't know why you call it nonsense. Some of us (me) are not "about exposure" - I'm about reach and smaller size (I usually shoot outside on bright days).

 

[PakkyT]

I don't know why you call it nonsense. Some of us (me) are not "about exposure" - I'm about reach and smaller size (I usually shoot outside on bright days).

Well then you are kind of about exposure since that sounds like mostly what you are interested rather than some small DoF rendering. When I see "reach" I don't normally think of small DoF, which is where the aperture "equivalency" gets talked about. For you an f/2.8 lens is an f/2.8 lens regardless of system, right?

 

[RAH]

Well then you are kind of about exposure since that sounds like mostly what you are interested rather than some small DoF rendering. When I see "reach" I don't normally think of small DoF, which is where the aperture "equivalency" gets talked about. For you an f/2.8 lens is an f/2.8 lens regardless of system, right?

I misunderstood what was meant. I am so used to not listening when they talk this way that I just tune it out. Yes, it is nonsense and the exposure is what matters. I remember a few years ago when Tony Northrup said that the manufacturer was misleading when they said a point-and-shoot super-zoom camera (small sensor) has say a f2.8 lens and that they should have said it has an f22 or something lens. I even emailed him and said THAT was misleading and would mean you would seldom have enough light to even use it. Weird stuff.

 

[ac12]

I don't know why you call it nonsense. Some of us (me) are not "about exposure" - I'm about reach and smaller size (I usually shoot outside on bright days).

The equivalent aperture discussion is like the equivalent focal length discussion.

Specific example in the video.
Chris said the equivalent to the Olympus 12-100/4 is a FF 24-200/8.
And talked about how do you sell a FF f/8 lens?

f/4 is f/4.
The formula for f-stop = focal length of the lens / diameter of the aperture
300mm lens / 75mm aperture = f/4

And to determine the minimum diameter of the front element.
diameter of the aperture = focal length of the lens / f-stop
300mm / f/4 = 75mm

Nowhere in that formula is the sensor/film size.

Back to the video, based on the 2nd formula above. 100mm / f/4 = 25mm aperture.
Then using the first formula 200mm / 25mm = f/8
I suspect that is HOW Chris came up with his 24-200/8 lens. Keeping the lens diameter the same.
Interestingly, the Nikon Z 24-200 is f/4-6.3. Just a little bit faster.


But then Jordan brought up Depth of Field.
That is the common use of "equivalent aperture."

As I understand the equivalent f/stop argument. It is about Depth of Field.
They are saying that a 300mm f/4 m4/3 lens, is the equivalent of a 600mm f/8 FF lens.
So a FF 600mm f/8 lens will give you a similar magnification and DoF to the m4/3 300/4 lens. Therefore the 300 f/4 m4/3 lens is really a f/8 lens.
This equivalence is based on getting a similar Depth of Field to an "equivalent" FF lens. It has nothing to do with exposure.
To me, it is only relevant if I care about minimum DoF at maximum aperture.
And the primary offenders seem to be the FF guys that are preaching SHALLOW DoF.

The problem especially today is, we have more than an entire generation that has no idea what a FF focal length or aperture is, because they have never used that format camera. The camera that people buy at Costco is an APS-C camera (Canon or Nikon), not a FF camera. Kids use a cell phone, as their first camera.
So this "equivalence" is pointing to a reference point that they do not understand.
It is like telling the average person that they are driving their car at 35 knots.


Then Chris talks about the Olympus 300/4 prime lens, and an equivalent FF 600/8 lens.
Using the same formula above, he is talking about minimizing the diameter of a FF lens, based on the diameter of a m4/3 lens.
OK I get that.
But I don't know how far technology can shorten a 600mm lens down.
So you have a long narrow "stove pipe" lens.

So as I view the video, Chris' definition of "equivalent aperture" seems to be based on keeping the FF lens diameter the same size as the m4/3 lens, not the common DoF argument. This was not clear to me, until I viewed the video a 3rd time.
I wish he stated that up front, so we could understand how he was coming up with HIS "equivalent apertures."


So back to their idea of making smaller FF pro lenses like the Olympus m4/3 lenses.
This is already happening. It has started with the f/4 pro zoom. My Nikon 70-200/4 is HALF the weight of the f/2.8 lens. And that weight reduction was the primary reason why I got it, rather than the 2x heavier f/2.8 lens. But that 70-200/4 lens is still more than 2x the weight of the comparable Panasonic 35-100/2.8 pro lens.
Can it go even smaller and lighter with a f/5.6 pro grade lens? And even slower LONG lenses? Yes it can.
Would people buy it? Maybe. As they said, with better camera sensors each generation, eventually it will be common.

My D70 has a max ISO of only 1600, my D7200 has a max ISO of 25600. That is 4 stops better. I can shoot with slower lenses and/or in lower light with the D7200 than I could with the D70. So just as I can use a kit lens where I used have to use a fast prime; eventually, I will be able to shoot with a kit lens, where I currently have to use a f/1.8 prime.

My school yearbook's standard camera used to be the Canon T3 and T5. We NEEDED to use the big/heavy 80-200/2.8 to shoot night football games.
After we upgraded to the T7i, we were shooting night games with the 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 kit zoom. The heavy 80-200/2.8 stayed in the cabinet, and was rarely used.

And you old fogies, like me, will remember when High Speed Ektachome at ASA 160 was the fastest color film we had, and Tri-X at ASA 400 was the fastest B&W film we had.

So the science and technology of shooting in lower light keeps advancing.

 

[phigmov]

TBF the most amusing thing about the video was Chris & Jordan deliberately using various common trigger words & phrases (you can almost see the raised eyebrow, tongue firmly planted in cheek) to wind-up enthusiasts. I have to admit to getting a third of the way through before I twigged to what was going on. I thought it was very well done.

 

[Aristophanes]

TBF the most amusing thing about the video was Chris & Jordan deliberately using various common trigger words & phrases (you can almost see the raised eyebrow, tongue firmly planted in cheek) to wind-up enthusiasts. I have to admit to getting a third of the way through before I twigged to what was going on. I thought it was very well done.

To be fair, they praised m43 and the lenses and sensor (scan rages, etc.). Same for prices, where the faster FF glass (Sony in mirrorless) is staggeringly costly.

The upcoming Canon f/11s and the Nikon PF effort show that industry is already addressing what is the “issue” in this video.

As for equivalence, Jordan nailed it when he said a constant aperture and DOF are everything in video, and he’s not wrong. So when they talked about f/4s being f/8s they were mostly expressing aesthetic consistency related to DOF, diffraction, and the overall shooting envelope, not exposure. In these days of, high-ISO sensors, invariant and dual-ISO sensors, the means to an exposure on different formats (and stabilization) is easier to accomplish than the desired composition and aesthetic (like when Jordan praised the controlled focus breathing on the 10-25/1.7).

The fact is it was Kris and Jordan meant video (“sucks”) is seen as an equal to stills in the way DPR is editorializing photography content now.

 

[RAH]

The equivalent aperture discussion is like the equivalent focal length discussion.
...
This equivalence is based on getting a similar Depth of Field to an "equivalent" FF lens. It has nothing to do with exposure.
To me, it is only relevant if I care about minimum DoF at maximum aperture.
And the primary offenders seem to be the FF guys that are preaching SHALLOW DoF.
...

Thanks for your detailed explanation @ac12 . You went to a lot of trouble to get all those details and it is helpful. However, I will mention that at 6PM I entered a new posting that explained that I had misunderstood what you said and saying that yes, what they said is nonsense (see above). I mention an email I sent to Tony Northrup faulting him for his ludicrous idea (similar to the FF folks now) and saying exactly what you just said - they seem fixated on DOF, which to most photographers is kind of a side issue, and ABSOLUTELY NEVER as important as the exposure. Talk about the tail wagging the dog! Tony actually has a video in which he says that small superzoom cameras should be specified as having apertures like f22 to f whatever , instead of the typical f2.8 - 5.6 or whatever. But, as you say, this is based on DOF. Bizarre as hell. So I ignore them when they start this talk.

 

[RAH]

To be fair, they praised m43 and the lenses and sensor (scan rages, etc.). Same for prices, where the faster FF glass (Sony in mirrorless) is staggeringly costly.

The upcoming Canon f/11s and the Nikon PF effort show that industry is already addressing what is the “issue” in this video.

Yes!

As for equivalence, Jordan nailed it when he said a constant aperture and DOF are everything in video, and he’s not wrong. So when they talked about f/4s being f/8s they were mostly expressing aesthetic consistency related to DOF, diffraction, and the overall shooting envelope, not exposure. In these days of, high-ISO sensors, invariant and dual-ISO sensors, the means to an exposure on different formats (and stabilization) is easier to accomplish than the desired composition and aesthetic (like when Jordan praised the controlled focus breathing on the 10-25/1.7).

Interesting, this idea of how video usage would differ a lot from still usage and why they seem so fixated on DOF (I was already aware about them being fixated on constant aperture). This doesn't explain why Northrup was fixated on it about 5 years ago, but I see where they are coming from now.

 

[Carbonman]

And you old fogies, like me, will remember when High Speed Ektachome at ASA 160 was the fastest color film we had, and Tri-X at ASA 400 was the fastest B&W film we had.

What about GAF 500? Grain like golfballs but could be pushed to ASA 1000.

 

[RichardC]

The equivalent aperture discussion is like the equivalent focal length discussion.

Specific example in the video.
Chris said the equivalent to the Olympus 12-100/4 is a FF 24-200/8.
And talked about how do you sell a FF f/8 lens?

f/4 is f/4.
The formula for f-stop = focal length of the lens / diameter of the aperture
300mm lens / 75mm aperture = f/4

And to determine the minimum diameter of the front element.
diameter of the aperture = focal length of the lens / f-stop
300mm / f/4 = 75mm

Nowhere in that formula is the sensor/film size.

Back to the video, based on the 2nd formula above. 100mm / f/4 = 25mm aperture.
Then using the first formula 200mm / 25mm = f/8
I suspect that is HOW Chris came up with his 24-200/8 lens. Keeping the lens diameter the same.
Interestingly, the Nikon Z 24-200 is f/4-6.3. Just a little bit faster.


But then Jordan brought up Depth of Field.
That is the common use of "equivalent aperture."

As I understand the equivalent f/stop argument. It is about Depth of Field.
They are saying that a 300mm f/4 m4/3 lens, is the equivalent of a 600mm f/8 FF lens.
So a FF 600mm f/8 lens will give you a similar magnification and DoF to the m4/3 300/4 lens. Therefore the 300 f/4 m4/3 lens is really a f/8 lens.
This equivalence is based on getting a similar Depth of Field to an "equivalent" FF lens. It has nothing to do with exposure.
To me, it is only relevant if I care about minimum DoF at maximum aperture.
And the primary offenders seem to be the FF guys that are preaching SHALLOW DoF.

The problem especially today is, we have more than an entire generation that has no idea what a FF focal length or aperture is, because they have never used that format camera. The camera that people buy at Costco is an APS-C camera (Canon or Nikon), not a FF camera. Kids use a cell phone, as their first camera.
So this "equivalence" is pointing to a reference point that they do not understand.
It is like telling the average person that they are driving their car at 35 knots.


Then Chris talks about the Olympus 300/4 prime lens, and an equivalent FF 600/8 lens.
Using the same formula above, he is talking about minimizing the diameter of a FF lens, based on the diameter of a m4/3 lens.
OK I get that.
But I don't know how far technology can shorten a 600mm lens down.
So you have a long narrow "stove pipe" lens.

So as I view the video, Chris' definition of "equivalent aperture" seems to be based on keeping the FF lens diameter the same size as the m4/3 lens, not the common DoF argument. This was not clear to me, until I viewed the video a 3rd time.
I wish he stated that up front, so we could understand how he was coming up with HIS "equivalent apertures."


So back to their idea of making smaller FF pro lenses like the Olympus m4/3 lenses.
This is already happening. It has started with the f/4 pro zoom. My Nikon 70-200/4 is HALF the weight of the f/2.8 lens. And that weight reduction was the primary reason why I got it, rather than the 2x heavier f/2.8 lens. But that 70-200/4 lens is still more than 2x the weight of the comparable Panasonic 35-100/2.8 pro lens.
Can it go even smaller and lighter with a f/5.6 pro grade lens? And even slower LONG lenses? Yes it can.
Would people buy it? Maybe. As they said, with better camera sensors each generation, eventually it will be common.

My D70 has a max ISO of only 1600, my D7200 has a max ISO of 25600. That is 4 stops better. I can shoot with slower lenses and/or in lower light with the D7200 than I could with the D70. So just as I can use a kit lens where I used have to use a fast prime; eventually, I will be able to shoot with a kit lens, where I currently have to use a f/1.8 prime.

My school yearbook's standard camera used to be the Canon T3 and T5. We NEEDED to use the big/heavy 80-200/2.8 to shoot night football games.
After we upgraded to the T7i, we were shooting night games with the 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 kit zoom. The heavy 80-200/2.8 stayed in the cabinet, and was rarely used.

And you old fogies, like me, will remember when High Speed Ektachome at ASA 160 was the fastest color film we had, and Tri-X at ASA 400 was the fastest B&W film we had.

So the science and technology of shooting in lower light keeps advancing.

My brain is beginning to hurt, but if the gist of what you're saying is that at 300mm f8 (MFT) I'm getting the depth of field of 600mm f16 (ff), but get to use a shutter speed twice as fast as I would do if I had the 600, then I'm a very happy bunny.

 

[RS86]

One argument for FF seems to be that you can just up the ISO by 2 stops and get same results. Mostly FF is 2 stops better in high ISO.

As there seems to be many knowledgeable people here (and I'm not sure if I understood everything right in ac12's explanation), I wonder if it is this simple or are there still some advantages for M43?

 

[tkbslc]

They keep repeating that crazy FF equivalent aperture nonsense.
I'm about exposure, that FF equivalence is totally not relevant to me.
That Olympus 300/4 will need a FF 600/4, to get the same exposure setting, not a 600/8.

It's very simple.

600/8 and 2 stops higher ISO to get same shutter speed and similar noise on FF. That's the exposure equivalence.

Of course it is also DOF equivalence, but that hardly matters with long telephotos.

The real world problem is that even with a small aperture, it is hard to make a 600mm lens as short as a 300mm one.

 

[pdk42]

I think it's odd that the word "defraction" was never used

That's because it's diffraction !

 

[pdk42]

One argument for FF seems to be that you can just up the ISO by 2 stops and get same results. Mostly FF is 2 stops better in high ISO.

As there seems to be many knowledgeable people here (and I'm not sure if I understood everything right in ac12's explanation), I wonder if it is this simple or are there still some advantages for M43?

Precisely. Two shots as follows:

- EM1.2 + 300mm f4 shot at ISO 400;
- Nikon Z6 (say) + a 600mm f8 shot at ISO 1600;

should give pretty much the same result. As the DPR video points out though - AF would be more of a challenge on the FF camera. But in output terms, it should be a wash. Clearly this only works for sensors of the same generation/performance. Don't try it on an E1 vs the Z6 for example, or the EM1.2 vs the Canon 5D!

 

[pdk42]

Actually, there is an FF equivalent of the 12-100. The Nikon Z 24-200 f4-f6.3 is the same range, similar equiv aperture (slightly faster), same size & weight, VR/IS-equipped, weather-sealed, and similar price. The Oly is still slightly better built, but otherwise they are pretty close and fill exactly the same niche.

 

[Aristophanes]

Precisely. Two shots as follows:

- EM1.2 + 300mm f4 shot at ISO 400;
- Nikon Z6 (say) + a 600mm f8 shot at ISO 1600;

should give pretty much the same result. As the DPR video points out though - AF would be more of a challenge on the FF camera. But in output terms, it should be a wash. Clearly this only works for sensors of the same generation/performance. Don't try it on an E1 vs the Z6 for example, or the EM1.2 vs the Canon 5D!

AF at smaller apertures regardless of sensor size. Canon is releasing 2 f/11 600 and 800mm lenses in 2020, and I suspect their dual-pixel AF just powers through.

 

[Aristophanes]

Actually, there is an FF equivalent of the 12-100. The Nikon Z 24-200 f4-f6.3 is the same range, similar equiv aperture (slightly faster), same size & weight, VR/IS-equipped, weather-sealed, and similar price. The Oly is still slightly better built, but otherwise they are pretty close and fill exactly the same niche.

Canon has the 24-240 as well.