full frame

[Moreorless]

Yes, but that's the way it works.

All I am saying is that micro 4/3rds as a system punches above where you would expect it based on sensor size alone to due to glass being made for the format. I am MUCH happier with the images that come from my G5 & 7-14mm than I was from the 5D2 and 17-40L for example.

I'v not used either so I can't comment but your looking at £250 more for the 7-14mm than the 17-40mm without weather sealing, the same with the Oly 75mm thats £650.

My point was that you claimed lenstip lpmm provided the best "universal" test when really I'd say quite the reverse, it doesnt measure actual output from a lens/camera system in the way say the photozone or DxO mark testing does. This is going to be most obvious when testing high end lenses agenst each other as the lens infront of a sensor with a lower pixel density will be limated.

 

[Steve T]

thanks for the feed back
Phil from derry/derrycity

Hope you memorise all that Phil mate !!
Just remember, a FF body makes your legs look skinny and a crop makes your ears look big

 

[arad85]

I'v not used either so I can't comment but your looking at £250 more for the 7-14mm than the 17-40mm without weather sealing, the same with the Oly 75mm thats £650.

Good glass costs. Having said that, I still ended up with more than £1000 in my pocket when I sold my FF system to buy micro 4/3 (and I sold second hand and bought new...).

My point was that you claimed lenstip lpmm provided the best "universal" test when really I'd say quite the reverse, it doesnt measure actual output from a lens/camera system in the way say the photozone or DxO mark testing does.

It does measure the camera/lens combo - by definition. It just divides by the height to give you a measurement you can use to get a sense of how different camera/lens combinations perform against each other. My point was simply that some micro 4/3rds lenses outperform the full frame offerings available by a significant margin and this goes towards compensating the sensor size difference.

People seem to be "arguing" with me as if I'm claiming micro 4/3 is the best thing since sliced bread and beats FF hands down. I'm NOT saying that. What I am saying is that it is better than you would expect from the sensor size alone due to the availability of very, very good lenses for the system.

 

[arad85]

Bizarrely, I came across this article just now which explains the points well: http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/

 

[HoppyUK]

Good glass costs. Having said that, I still ended up with more than £1000 in my pocket when I sold my FF system to buy micro 4/3 (and I sold second hand and bought new...).

It does measure the camera/lens combo - by definition. It just divides by the height to give you a measurement you can use to get a sense of how different camera/lens combinations perform against each other. My point was simply that some micro 4/3rds lenses outperform the full frame offerings available by a significant margin and this goes towards compensating the sensor size difference.

People seem to be "arguing" with me as if I'm claiming micro 4/3 is the best thing since sliced bread and beats FF hands down. I'm NOT saying that. What I am saying is that it is better than you would expect from the sensor size alone due to the availability of very, very good lenses for the system.

That's not a bad summary IMHO.

In theory, there is equivalence between formats. For example, shoot on a 20mp full-frame camera with a 50mm lens at f/2 at ISO400, and then on a 20mp M4/3 with 25mm f/1.0 lens at ISO100 (same shutter speed on both) and the images would be identical in terms of framing, depth of field, noise (same total light/photon capture having dropped the ISO two stops).

For sharpness to be equal, the M4/3 lens has to deliver double the resolution at the same MTF level, which is a big ask, but there is also some equivalence in lenses where designers can play swings and roundabouts and trade things like maximum aperture with format coverage, or MTF level against zoom range or cost. It is much easier to make a high quality f/1.0 lens for M4/3 than it is for full-frame as the sensor has only one quarter the image area.

In practise, it doesn't quite work out like that, but it's getting there. We haven't seen a 20mp M4/3 sensor yet, though we surely will very soon, and while some lenses designed specifically for smaller formats are exceptionally good, they are not twice as good yet. Andy cites the Olympus macro and that is certainly extremely sharp, I've also been mightily impressed with Nikon's 1-series optics too. There's a camera that punches way above its weight.

In future, we will see the gap narrowing further for sure, as huge development resourses are being invested in smaller formats, in direct relation to consumer demand and therefore business return. It's interesting to bring medium format digital into this, which should, in theory, have a big image quality advantage, but the Nikon D800 for example has almost got its measure. The problem medium format has is low market demand and nobody has invested in new sensor design for many years. Most medium format lenses are old film designs too, that doesn't help.

My view is that full-frame will always stay ahead in terms of ultimate image quality, simply because the larger sensor gives it such a head start - and there is also a lot of development investment going into FF. It's a bit like, if you want a fast car, start with a big engine. But then if you slap a turbo onto a smaller engine, suddenly the game changes - until you pop a turbo on to the bigger engine You then come to the question, not which is fastest/best, but how fast do you need to go?

ps Pookey, try fitting that Schneider large format lens on the Nikon D800 - it won't be rubbish for sure, but it won't be as good as the best lenses designed for FF. I find kitchen roll cores and gaffa tape handy for this kind of thing

 

[woof woof]

My view is that full-frame will always stay ahead in terms of ultimate image quality, simply because the larger sensor gives it such a head start...

FF will always offer more ultimate quality and options but we're at the point, or at least very near to it, when most people will rarely if ever see it as to do so they'd have to push the highest boundries of ISO's, print a whole image very large indeed or crop and print large.

In fact the developments in FF arguably bring new problems too when taking advantage of the larger images and greater cropping which is possible, such as needing better lenses and possibly needing to use a tripod.

Smaller systems allow me to shoot hand held with a compact and light system capable of producing perfectly good images at low to middling ISO's that can get lost in a pile of FF images when viewed normally at sizes up to A3, and that's good enough for me

And how we got into all this... what advantages with FF have over a 40D. IMVHO, better higher ISO performance and beyond that I personally think you'll have to look very closely to see any significant difference if shots from each are processed to give the best results. Over and out

 

[derrycity]

yet again more good replys when i get the cash it's will be a FF

 

[Pookeyhead]

People seem to be "arguing" with me as if I'm claiming micro 4/3 is the best thing since sliced bread and beats FF hands down. I'm NOT saying that. What I am saying is that it is better than you would expect from the sensor size alone due to the availability of very, very good lenses for the system.

Lets gets this straight though.. not ALL Zuiko MFT lenses get any where near 80lp/mm. Most are around 50ish.. which is the same as most lenses for most systems. Using those lenses, then the advantage is gone.. then it's just another small format system... perhaps with a slight incidence angle advantage. Still good... but perhaps irrelevant for the OP... if he's still around

 

[woof woof]

If you don't crop and you don't print larger than A3 then I'd say you probably won't see any real advantage in upgrading to full frame unless you're examining the prints so close your nose it at risk of leaving a smear of skin grease on the print

I have my 5D and MFT systems but I ditched APS-C as it seemed caught in the middle. The OP sems to be heading for FF and I can't really critisise anyone going that way

 

[Pookeyhead]

I think it's the best way to go, just because I reckon DX in DSLRs is on borrowed time, as SLR manufacturers jostle for market supremacy. Look how price has dropped this past 12 months with stuff like the D600. We've also seen a couple of new FX lens releases this year aimed at the lower price bracket.... Hmmmm.... (strokey beard moment).

I foresee DX, MFT etc being the format of compacts and mirrorless small systems, where it excels, and FF being "normal"... which would actually make more sense in the great scheme of things. It will end all this full frame alpha male willy waving

Clearly... we're not going to see any massive leaps in lens technology for larger format systems, and cameras like the D800 have already demonstrated that there is absolutely no point in having anything more than 35mp or so crammed into a 35mm frame, as it's lens limited as it is.

Where else to go? Medium Format digital.

My prediction for the not so distant future, is a budget foray into medium format for whoever is brave enough to take the leap. There's a massive void in the market with all medium format digital gear aimed squarely at the professional, with new prices STARTING at around £6k.

I'll bet a tenner that within 5 years we'll have someone championing the MF digital cause with a lower prices pro-sumer machine... and about time too! All this talk of "full frame"... 35mm was always the poor cousin to MF you know... still is in my mind.

 

[Fla5h]

Interesting post, I started last feb with the 600d which was my first time into DSLR but budget was my restriction

I guess having both would be the best of both worlds

 

[Steve Smith]

What I am saying is that due to the larger sensor size, the lenses designed for full frame don't need to be as sharp to produce the same level of sharpness in the image. Whether a manufacturer chooses to design beyond that or not is another matter.

It is the same with film. Medium and large format lenses do not need to be as good as those for 35mm. Some of them are though.


Steve.

 

[Pookeyhead]

It is the same with film. Medium and large format lenses do not need to be as good as those for 35mm. Some of them are though.


Steve.

Manufacturers will always strive to get the most from their lenses though. Most of my Schneider large format lenses can easily achieve around 50 lp/mm.. about the same as most 35mm primes. Most of my Mamyia Sekor lenses are in the same ball park. It's a myth that large format lenses are not as good. I think it started because, you are right... they don't "need" to be. It doesn't mean they aren't though.

 

[Steve Smith]

No one would purposefully design an MF or LF lens to be of poor quality so it's of no surprise that many are better than they need to be.


Steve.

 

[arad85]

Lets gets this straight though.. not ALL Zuiko MFT lenses get any where near 80lp/mm. Most are around 50ish.. which is the same as most lenses for most systems.

Why have facts when FUD will do you better? I'd like to see where you get those figures from - please post links if you can .

Let's take a look at what is easily available from Lenstip...

• 12mm f2 Oly: 70 lp/mm on a 12Mpix body: http://www.lenstip.com/310.4-Lens_r..._Digital_12_mm_f_2.0_ED_Image_resolution.html
• 14mm F2.5: 70 lp/mm (on a 12Mpix body) @ f4: http://www.lenstip.com/273.4-Lens_review-Panasonic_G_14_mm_f_2.5_ASPH._Image_resolution.html
• 20mm f1.7: 75ish lp/mm (on a 12Mpix body): http://www.lenstip.com/269.4-Lens_review-Panasonic_G_20_mm_f_1.7_ASPH._Image_resolution.html
• 25mm F1.4: ~75lp/mm on a 12Mpix body: http://www.lenstip.com/314.4-Lens_r...MILUX_25_mm_f_1.4_ASPH._Image_resolution.html
• Panansonic 45mm macro: 80+ lp/mm on a 12Mpix body: http://www.lenstip.com/289.4-Lens_r...mm_f_2.8_ASPH._M.O.I.S._Image_resolution.html
• Oly 45mm f 1.8: 75+ lp/mm on a 12Mpix body: http://www.lenstip.com/316.4-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_45_mm_f_1.8_Image_resolution.html

Let's look at some Canon lenses:

• 14mm f/2.8L USM II: 40 lp/mm: http://www.lenstip.com/324.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_14_mm_f_2.8L_USM_II_Image_resolution.html
• EF 20 mm f/2.8 USM: 40 lp/mm: http://www.lenstip.com/236.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_20_mm_f_2.8_USM_Image_resolution.html
• EF 24mm f1.4L II: 50lp/mm: http://www.lenstip.com/245.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_24_mm_f_1.4L_II_USM_Image_resolution.html
• EF 35 mm f/1.4L USM: 45 lp/mm: http://www.lenstip.com/170.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_35_mm_f_1.4L_USM_Image_resolution.html
• EF 50mm f/1.2L USM: 50lp/mm: http://www.lenstip.com/257.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_50_mm_f_1.2L_USM_Image_resolution.html
• EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM: 45 lp/mm: http://www.lenstip.com/189.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_85_mm_f_1.2L_II_USM_Image_resolution.html
• 100mm F2.8L macro: 50 lp/mm: http://www.lenstip.com/214.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_100_mm_f_2.8_L_Macro_IS_USM_Image_resolution.html
• 135 f/2L USM: 44lp/mm: http://www.lenstip.com/320.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_135_mm_f_2L_USM_Image_resolution.html
• EF 200mm F/2.0L IS USM: 45 lp/mm: http://www.lenstip.com/344.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_200_mm_f_2.0L_IS_USM_Image_resolution.html
• EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM: 45lp/mm: http://www.lenstip.com/329.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_300_mm_f_2.8_L_IS_II_USM_Image_resolution.html

So... as you can see... all Canons high end, expensive lenses which are designed to be "the best a man can get" outperform all the cheapo rubbish micro 4/3rds lenses... Umm... NOT

No one would purposefully design an MF or LF lens to be of poor quality so it's of no surprise that many are better than they need to be.

No.. noone designs a lens to be of poor quality, but the larger the sensor, the more the design tradeoffs are and the lower resolving power you need for a sharp image. The point is you don't need to design an ultra sharp lens for the bigger formats, so manufacturers dont....

 

[amfoto]

He is from Londonderry thats just the way they talk.

Naw he thinks he from Derry ,, even thou hes from Londonderry

 

[woof woof]

Where else to go? Medium Format digital.

As the format size increases what's thought of as a standard focal length becomes longer and (if we assume for discussion sake that a FF standard lens is 50mm) 25mm for MFT becomes 30/35mm for APS-C and 50mm for FF and once you go larger your looking at, what? 80mm+. As the standard focal lengths get longer the apertures get smaller (for the same DoF) and even when shooting for small prints minimum shutter speeds could need to increase not only to get a shot free from blur but also to get decent DoF. If we assume that we need a shutter speed of x1 to x2 focal length to get a blur free shot with adequate DoF then 1/25-1/50 sec @25mm @f4 for MFT changes to 1/30-1/60 sec @f5/6 @30/35mm for APS-C and 1/50-1/100@50mm@f8 for FF and so on... you get the picture.

So as the format size increases not only does our camera and lens package become bulkier and heavier we're also faced with using narrower apertures and longer exposure times or increasingly higher ISO's.

To me the sweet spot of portability and aperture / shutter speed / DoF control for hand held non tripod shooting lies in the range covering MFT at one end passing through APS-C and on to FF at the other end with FF being on the borderline of being too big a format for me personally for portability and hand held shooting.

At the moment my MFT struggles at the higher ISO's and there's also limited dynamic range relative to full frame. Later MFT models seem to have better ISO performance and whilst FF may very well still lead at the higher ISO's for many people the latest MFT and APS-C chip CSC are good enough so that the ISO gap is irrelevant, especially when the latest and upcoming state of the art processing packages with their ever better noise reduction come into play. The same is true of dynamic range with the latest MFT and APS-C chip CSC offering enough dynamic range for many people. Again this is helped by newer post capture processing software which is getting much better when boosting shadows and reducing noise.

My current thinking is that the latest CSC's are easily capable of shooting from base to high ISO (at the high end 3200-6400 being good enough, possibly a little higher with care?) and capturing enough dynamic range to produce good prints to A3. As I said, my current G1 manages to produce images which after processing are lost amongst 5D images up to maybe ISO 800 with ease, 1600 requiring work and 1600-2000 or so being easily usable with more care, only really getting to the point of falling apart at 3200. So I fully expect later generations to offer even better performance.

I've accepted that for all but ISO 1600-3200 my G1 is good enough, image quality wise. There are however other issues such as the EVF which some don't like. I can use it in all but low light and then I find the light output too high for me to use it. Other than that I don't like no marking fly by wire lenses and I don't like being limited to a max shutter speed of 1/4000 sec (this matters when shooting with wide apertures in good light,) but I have few issues with actual CSC image quality to A3 and under.

For me the future is getting "FF" chips into smaller bodies. We have the Sony fixed lens FF now and more and interchangeable lens CSC will follow. I will probably buy one just to relive my quality 35mm compact/rangefinder days but I'll also have a smaller chip system too.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Why have facts when FUD will do you better? I'd like to see where you get those figures from - please post links if you can .

Ok...

58lp/mm 41lp/mm edge.

51 lp/mm centre.... 43 lp/mm edge.

51lp/mm

65 lp/mm

All I'm saying is that not ALL MFT lenses are as good as you suggest... no more, no less... and I'm only saying this because you seemed to indicate that they are.

Stop being defensive No one has said anything bad about MFT. I'd love to justify the cost of a OM-D system to my wife It would be a fantastic travel kit, and I do tire of heavy gear when travelling, but always feel restricted by a compact. I love the MFT idea.... I just don't think it's "amazing" or anything.

As the format size increases what's thought of as a standard focal length becomes longer and (if we assume for discussion sake that a FF standard lens is 50mm) 25mm for MFT becomes 30/35mm for APS-C and 50mm for FF and once you go larger your looking at, what? 80mm+.

But you're working on the premise that we "need" a "standard". What's wrong with just knowing what lens gives what effect for YOUR system. Why this need to have an "equivalence"? That's always bothered me. When I used DX gear, I thought of a 35 as standard... not 50.

As the standard focal lengths get longer the apertures get smaller (for the same DoF) and even when shooting for small prints minimum shutter speeds could need to increase not only to get a shot free from blur but also to get decent DoF. If we assume that we need a shutter speed of x1 to x2 focal length to get a blur free shot with adequate DoF then 1/25-1/50 sec @25mm @f4 for MFT changes to 1/30-1/60 sec @f5/6 @30/35mm for APS-C and 1/50-1/100@50mm@f8 for FF and so on... you get the picture.

Again you're stuck in the mindset of equivalence. People who need shallow DOF in a shot would just chose a smaller format... just like they do now. I'm not suggesting MF would replace 35mm.. just that it will probably become more affordable as manufacturers keep pushing for larger sensors, more resolution, and lower price... which does seem to be a beginning trend.

So as the format size increases not only does our camera and lens package become bulkier and heavier we're also faced with using narrower apertures and longer exposure times or increasingly higher ISO's.

Again.. assuming some kind of replacement for 35mm. If you don't want bulk and long lenses and narrow DOF... then shoot 35mm. Just as now... if you don;t want the bulk of a DSLR, go with MFT. Remember, that due to lower DOF with longer lenses, most MF and LF lenses stop down to f32 or f64, and due to the lower requirements of lens resolution, the diffraction at such f stops becomes less important.

To me the sweet spot of portability and aperture / shutter speed / DoF control for hand held non tripod shooting lies in the range covering MFT at one end passing through APS-C and on to FF at the other end with FF being on the borderline of being too big a format for me personally for portability and hand held shooting.

No one's saying it isn't.. but you are making an assumption that everyone wants, or needs portability for their work. What if most of your stuff is shot in a studio? I bet there are tons of studio photographers or landscape photographers who would LOVE to get their hands on MF digital gear but can't afford the 6K entry price to that particular gig.

For me the future is getting "FF" chips into smaller bodies. We have the Sony fixed lens FF now and more and interchangeable lens CSC will follow. I will probably buy one just to relive my quality 35mm compact/rangefinder days but I'll also have a smaller chip system too.

Well.. we'll see I think lower priced FF cameras will start a desire for more and more quality in images, and someone will fill that need by developing a MF system at an affordable (less than £3k) price range.

I'm not suggesting this will be "replacing" anything.

 

[HoppyUK]

I think it's the best way to go, just because I reckon DX in DSLRs is on borrowed time, as SLR manufacturers jostle for market supremacy. Look how price has dropped this past 12 months with stuff like the D600. We've also seen a couple of new FX lens releases this year aimed at the lower price bracket.... Hmmmm.... (strokey beard moment).

I foresee DX, MFT etc being the format of compacts and mirrorless small systems, where it excels, and FF being "normal"... which would actually make more sense in the great scheme of things. It will end all this full frame alpha male willy waving

Clearly... we're not going to see any massive leaps in lens technology for larger format systems, and cameras like the D800 have already demonstrated that there is absolutely no point in having anything more than 35mp or so crammed into a 35mm frame, as it's lens limited as it is.

Where else to go? Medium Format digital.

My prediction for the not so distant future, is a budget foray into medium format for whoever is brave enough to take the leap. There's a massive void in the market with all medium format digital gear aimed squarely at the professional, with new prices STARTING at around £6k.

I'll bet a tenner that within 5 years we'll have someone championing the MF digital cause with a lower prices pro-sumer machine... and about time too! All this talk of "full frame"... 35mm was always the poor cousin to MF you know... still is in my mind.

I disagree with almost all of that. Who knows, you may be right, but I'll see your tenner

Manufacturers will always strive to get the most from their lenses though. Most of my Schneider large format lenses can easily achieve around 50 lp/mm.. about the same as most 35mm primes. Most of my Mamyia Sekor lenses are in the same ball park. It's a myth that large format lenses are not as good. I think it started because, you are right... they don't "need" to be. It doesn't mean they aren't though.

Stick your best Schneider on the D800 and see how it compares to your best FF lens. It won't be as good.

IMHO, bottom line is FF will always hold the image quality advantage because, in practise, the larger sensor gives it too much of a head start. It also suits DSLR camera design and the advantages that still holds over mirrorless - at least for the next few years.

Smaller formats like APS-C and M4/3 will prosper because the camera/lens can be made substantially smaller, with IQ that is more than adequate. One other advantage of smaller formats we've not really touched on here is 'pixel-reach' meaning that smaller formats with their shorter focal length lenses are much more affordable and manageable for birding/aircraft and sport/action photography in general.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I disagree with almost all of that. Who knows, you may be right, but I'll see your tenner

You're on... a tenner

Stick your best Schneider on the D800 and see how it compares to your best FF lens. It won't be as good.

Each new Schnieder lens comes with a test report from the factory. They seem to be equal to the task, on paper at least.. and assuming it was possible, the MASSIVE image circle would mean that the edge and centre performance on a D800 would be identical. So in effect, you'd have a lens capable of over 50lp/mm from corner to centre with no degradation in performance and no vignetting. My Apo Symmar 150 is a stupidly fabulous lens and makes no compromise by being a large format lens that I can see.

IMHO, bottom line is FF will always hold the image quality advantage

Over smaller systems, yes, of course, but not larger systems.

 

[arad85]

Ok...

58lp/mm 41lp/mm edge.

51 lp/mm centre.... 43 lp/mm edge.

51lp/mm

65 lp/mm

All I'm saying is that not ALL MFT lenses are as good as you suggest... no more, no less... and I'm only saying this because you seemed to indicate that they are.

I'm lost here... You are posting test results that show that micro 4/3rds zoom lenses, and kit ones at that - that go for £60 second hand, are better at resolving things than £thousands L lenses...


Wait a minute.... that's exactly what I've been saying

 

[Pookeyhead]

Arrrgh!.....

I'm not saying you're wrong.. I'm just pointing out that not all MFT lenses are 80lp/mm wonders you keep linking to!

Of course FF lenses are more expensive. They're bigger and making large optical surfaces as accurate, that cover a larger image circle is more difficult. No one, including me has ever argued that was not the case.

My point is... having a lens that equals, or at best exceeds the resolution of a FF lens by 10 or 15lp/mm is not really enough to make up the shortfall in sensor size.

You seem hell bent on ramming MFT down everyone's throats. Yeah.. we get it... you love MFT. Who doesn't? It's just not as great as you think it is... that's all.

 

[HoppyUK]

You're on... a tenner


Each new Schnieder lens comes with a test report from the factory. They seem to be equal to the task, on paper at least.. and assuming it was possible, the MASSIVE image circle would mean that the edge and centre performance on a D800 would be identical. So in effect, you'd have a lens capable of over 50lp/mm from corner to centre with no degradation in performance and no vignetting. My Apo Symmar 150 is a stupidly fabulous lens and makes no compromise by being a large format lens that I can see.

But you haven't seen it, not a direct side by side comparison. Not easy to do I, and it's not any kind of challenge, but it's the kind of thing I sometimes try just for the heck of it. I've not done a 5x4 lens vs FF for a very long time but the Schneider's problem is its massive image circle and that imposes big optical design constraints and compromises. It's physics, same as why M4/3 lenses can be made sharper than FF.

"Originally Posted by HoppyUK
IMHO, bottom line is FF will always hold the image quality advantage"

Over smaller systems, yes, of course, but not larger systems.

We have to consider both theory and practise. In IQ terms, bigger is better, but when it comes to actual cameras, when you go bigger than FF they quickly become unwieldy and much less appealing, lenses too. So the market is smaller, consumer demand drops, development investment cannot be justified, spiral of decline.

The net result is prices sky-rocket and even then maximum potential is rarely realised. Medium format digital has one foot in the grave, other than as a super-expensive niche of a niche of a niche. Pentax 645D fell on stony ground, Leica S2 is a folly - and neither of those is anything like true medium format anyway.

 

[arad85]

My point is... having a lens that equals, or at best exceeds the resolution of a FF lens by 10 or 15lp/mm is not really enough to make up the shortfall in sensor size.

Except for the ones I mentioned, it's more like 80+% (or 30+ lp/mm on 40 lp/mm) And those are the good lenses in both formats. I didn't pick the best in each format, I just picked the primes as that was the easiest to pick. And the difference is staggering!

You seem hell bent on ramming MFT down everyone's throats. Yeah.. we get it... you love MFT. Who doesn't? It's just not as great as you think it is... that's all.

<sigh>

 

[woof woof]

But you're working on the premise that we "need" a "standard". What's wrong with just knowing what lens gives what effect for YOUR system. Why this need to have an "equivalence"? That's always bothered me. When I used DX gear, I thought of a 35 as standard... not 50.

Well, whatever the system we'll each choose the lenses that get us the result we want. For example you don't see too many people shooting with a 6mm lens on large format do you? But 6mm could fit a small sensor compact quite nicely.

Many people seem to think that something between 35 and 50mm is the "standard" for FF and because different focal length lenses give different FoV's when mounted on different format sensors in my long winded previous post I did include 30-35mm as the "standard" for APS-C, assuming 50mm is the "standard" for FF. I gave two lengths because APS-C is either x1.5 or x1.6 FF depending on what APS-C camera you buy. The equiv for MFT is therefore 25mm in my little imaginary universe.

So, if we accept a "standard" somewhere between 30 and 50mm for FF it's easy to convert this "standard" from one format to another format to get about the same result but change the "standard" from 50mm to 35mm or 6mm or anything else and the example still works and seems reasonable to me.

Again you're stuck in the mindset of equivalence. People who need shallow DOF in a shot would just chose a smaller format... just like they do now. I'm not suggesting MF would replace 35mm.. just that it will probably become more affordable as manufacturers keep pushing for larger sensors, more resolution, and lower price... which does seem to be a beginning trend.

I think that's a typo there... people who need deeper DoF (not shallower) would choose a smaller format and that's partly my point. For me personally a larger format is less practical, sometimes, as I don't want the bulk and I don't like to use a tripod. MTF however, arguably, obviously sometimes offers more DoF (but still enough scope for shallow DoF if that's what you want) at wider apertures and can be used at lower shutter speeds.

Again.. assuming some kind of replacement for 35mm. If you don't want bulk and long lenses and narrow DOF... then shoot 35mm. Just as now... if you don;t want the bulk of a DSLR, go with MFT.

"35mm" is about as bulky as I want for hand held shooting.

No one's saying it isn't.. but you are making an assumption that everyone wants, or needs portability for their work. What is most of your stuff is shot in a studio? I bet there are tons of studio photographers or landscape photographers who would LOVE to get their hands on MF digital gear but can't afford the 6K entry price to that particular gig.

Sorry if I gave that impression. I've tried to consistantly say things like "for me," and "I think" and "me" etc I do realise that others may have a different and equally valid view but personally I like to shoot handheld and I like to avoid using a tripod. The larger systems are therefore at the edge of what I want, portability and hand held use wise.

Well.. we'll see I think lower priced FF cameras will start a desire for more and more quality in images, and someone will fill that need by developing a MF system at an affordable (less than £3k) price range.

I'm not suggesting this will be "replacing" anything.

The big advantage for me in MFT at the moment is that it's a compact system which enables me to shoot at relatively low ISO, relatively wide aperture and relatively low shutter speed. For example I can shoot with MFT and a 25mm lens @f2-4 and 1/20 sec and get usable results. I can't do that as easily with my 5D+50mm as I'll be fighting for DoF and shutter speed. With FF and a 50mm lens I'd want to be at 1/50 sec as a minimum and even then I'd be pushing what I can hand hold. FF may well match the DoF and shutter speed of MFT in good to low light shooting through the use of higher ISO's but importantly for me it wont be matching the compactness of a MFT/CSC and lens combo in the next couple of years as to do that we'll need a change in sensor/lens technology. I'll probably still keep both systems but as MFT and other CSC improve I suspect, in fact I know, I'll be using my 5D a lot less. I hardly use it now

 

[Steve Smith]

As far as sensors go, I think that just like film, they have reached the point where the laws of physics are now the limitation.

I think that with a comparable size, digital and film are now about equal in resolution. This is obviously a generalisation as there are areas where film will come out better and applications where digital would have the edge.

With film it's easy to get more resolution - you just use a bigger piece of film.

Exactly the same is true with a sensor - bigger is better. But this introduces more challenges for manufacturing. The yield is quite low already. Making a larger sensor would reduce the manufacturing yield a lot leading to exponentially higher prices.


Steve.

 

[Pookeyhead]

But you haven't seen it, not a direct side by side comparison. Not easy to do I,

Nope. I haven't. I'll just have to trust Schneider

We have to consider both theory and practise. In IQ terms, bigger is better, but when it comes to actual cameras, when you go bigger than FF they quickly become unwieldy and much less appealing, lenses too. So the market is smaller, consumer demand drops, development investment cannot be justified, spiral of decline.

But it would just be a return to how it used to be. small film form factors for amateurs and consumers, 35mm as a general portable system used by everyone, and medium format for serious quality, studio and landscape etc. That's how it always was so far as I can remember. MF gear never used to be £20k.. LOL. I remember buying a Bronica SQ-Ai for less than my Nikon F5 cost me.

No one would force anyone to use it... but I think lower priced MF digital is WELL over due, and I think the majority would welcome it.

There will be a small gear based fraternity who won't though, because it means that they'll no longer have the best, and they will feel forced to move to a bigger format they don't want in order to continue being the best Who cares about them though? They're not photographers, they're just collectors who like to use their toys. Most would like the choice.

The net result is prices sky-rocket and even then maximum potential is rarely realised. Medium format digital has one foot in the grave, other than as a super-expensive niche of a niche of a niche. Pentax 645D fell on stony ground, Leica S2 is a folly - and neither of those is anything like true medium format anyway.

How can you say it's got one foot in the grave when 35mm is not even close to being good enough for many photographers? Seriously.. the D800 is laughably poor compared to most high end MF systems.

Why would the price sky rocket? Supply and demand. Shift more units, sell them cheaper. Anyway.. we're talking about a possible future here.. no one knows. I bet if you did a straw poll though, and asked "Would you buy medium format digital if it was the same price as a D800" and many would.. maybe most would. It's getting cheaper, and easier to make larger sensors as fab processes become smaller.. just like all semiconductor industries.. smaller, lower power, cheaper... and sensors will be the same.

So, if we accept a "standard" somewhere between 30 and 50mm for FF it's easy to convert this "standard" from one format to another format to get about the same result but change the "standard" from 50mm to 35mm or 6mm or anything else and the example still works and seems reasonable to me.

Why this obsession with "standards" across formats? We never had any of these issues in the film days. My F5 had a 50 as as standard and my Mamyia had a 90. This obsession with equivalancy is only a legacy of the first digital cameras using a SLR type body and existing lenses with a smaller sensor. It's not even as it most people care, or need to know. This idea of equivalency goes out of the window with MFT and compact camera any way... maybe it's time we just buried the whole thing and moved on.

For me personally a larger format is less practical, sometimes, as I don't want the bulk and I don't like to use a tripod. MTF however, arguably, obviously sometimes offers more DoF (but still enough scope for shallow DoF if that's what you want) at wider apertures and can be used at lower shutter speeds.

These are strange responses Then when this new, cheaper MF arrives.. don't buy it.

"35mm" is about as bulky as I want for hand held shooting.

Then... that's your limit.

Sorry if I gave that impression. I've tried to consistantly say things like "for me," and "I think" and "me" etc I do realise that others may have a different and equally valid view but personally I like to shoot handheld and I like to avoid using a tripod. The larger systems are therefore at the edge of what I want, portability and hand held use wise.

But that's got nothing to do with it. Tons of people shoot in studios, and take tripods with them everywhere.... I bet they'd love a £3k MF body.

The big advantage for me in MFT at the moment is that it's a......

Well.. anyone who uses MFT at the moment is clearly not going to give a fig about MF. Many would though, and I think as sensor prices fall.... someone will notice the massive financial chasm between high end 35mm gear and high end MF gear and see a large potential market ripe for the taking. That's all I'm saying.

 

[woof woof]

Why this obsession with "standards" across formats? We never had any of these issues in the film days. My F5 had a 50 as as standard and my Mamyia had a 90. This obsession with equivalancy is only a legacy of the first digital cameras using a SLR type body and existing lenses with a smaller sensor. It's not even as it most people care, or need to know. This idea of equivalency goes out of the window with MFT and compact camera any way... maybe it's time we just buried the whole thing and moved on.

Yes. We had equiv issues in the film days as illustrated by the choice of lenses from F5 to Mamyia. You're right in that people don't need to know, it's a choice they can make by looking through the VF and thinking what and how they shoot. Thus 25mm on MFT becomes 35mm on APS-C and 50mm on FF People chose compact film cameras for casual use and large format cameras for... whatever they used them for in exactly the same way and with the same decision processes as we use these days with digital. It's exacty the same thing.

My whole point being that if we use camera A, B or C to take a picture how we want to take the picture then we may end up with 25, 35 and 50mm lenses The choice of format size and lens affects the camera + lens package size and also the focal length, aperture, shutter speed and ISO settings that we use We can choose a camera and lens to fit our purpose, holiday use, studio use, birding use etc., and our purpose and use will no doubt include thoughts on focal length, camera to subject distance, aperture, shutter speed and everything else

We can select the gear based on what we shoot, how we shoot and the result we want and if we have a mind to we can also adapt how and what we shoot based on the gear

Choice is good!

 

[Pookeyhead]

Yes. We had equiv issues in the film days as illustrated by the choice of lenses from F5 to Mamyia.

Not really. I never thought about what the 35mm equivalent was. I never thought, "what lens will give me the same effect as a 24mm on my Nikon". I just reach into the case and select the lens I need. Why would I worry about what lens would give what effect on 35mm when I'm shooting 6x7? I'd just think "I need a wide lens" and select one. At no point did I think "50mm isn't very wide" just because it's not wide on my Nikon... because I wasn't using a Nikon.


I just don't get this equivalence thing... maybe it's just me. (shrug). I just find it amusing that we're more locked into this 35mm mindset now than ever before, and most people don't even use a 35mm format these days

 

[Moreorless]

For me the future is getting "FF" chips into smaller bodies. We have the Sony fixed lens FF now and more and interchangeable lens CSC will follow. I will probably buy one just to relive my quality 35mm compact/rangefinder days but I'll also have a smaller chip system too.

The problem I see with this is lens size, micro 4/3rds seems to be a sweet spot were most lenses outside of fast/very long tele's balance pretty well with a smaller body. If you go as far as FF how many zooms are actually going to balance well?

Is the market for a system based mostly on primes going to be large enough to allow for the investment needed?

To me it seems like a good move might be to actually overshoot FF and aim at the potential MF market Pookey mentioned, werent Samsung showing pics of several MF mirrorless prototyles awhile ago?

MF mirrorless seems like it would have the advanatge that size saving does become significant to most users. On a FF body I'd argue that often its really controls and grip that deside the size as much as having to house the mirrorbox/prism. You go up to something like the Pentax 645D on the other hand and its clear the mirrorbox/prism is adding alot of extra bulk that would idealy not have been there.

The needs of a typical MF users(I'm guessing mainly studio and landscape) seem likely to be different from FF aswell, AF tracking and lagless OVF's seems likely to be less of an issue while primes seem likely to be more acceptable.

 

[woof woof]

Not really. I never thought about what the 35mm equivalent was. I never thought, "what lens will give me the same effect as a 24mm on my Nikon". I just reach into the case and select the lens I need. Why would I worry about what lens would give what effect on 35mm when I'm shooting 6x7? I'd just think "I need a wide lens" and select one. At no point did I think "50mm isn't very wide" just because it's not wide on my Nikon... because I wasn't using a Nikon.


I just don't get this equivalence thing... maybe it's just me. (shrug). I just find it amusing that we're more locked into this 35mm mindset now than ever before, and most people don't even use a 35mm format these days

I think you're just not seeing it

Of course you don't have to think "Hmmm, what lens will give me the equiv FoV of a 50mm lens on FF? Hmmm...." What you do is select the lens you want to give you the result you want. On MFT you may pick a 25mm lens, on APS-C you may pick a 35mm and with FF you may pick a 50mm!

It does't have to be a conscious search for the equiv lens, but you end up picking a wide, a standard, a long lens, a macro or whatever... to suit the format... and you can find these for each format, so they're EQUIV's!!! They give you equiv results! 25mm om MFT doesn't have to give you the equiv FoV of a 50mm lens on FF, the 50mm FF lens can give the equiv FoV of 25mm on MFT Whichever way you look at it doesn't matter. You can end up with bigger or smaller gear that gives more or less the same result at low to middling ISO's and image sizes of A3 and smaller! YaY! My point!

 

[woof woof]

The problem I see with this is lens size, micro 4/3rds seems to be a sweet spot were most lenses outside of fast/very long tele's balance pretty well with a smaller body. If you go as far as FF how many zooms are actually going to balance well?

Yup. If/when I buy a full frame compact I'll almost certainly use it with just one lens, possibly two, just like I used my fixed and interchangeable lens 35mm compacts and RF's. I've been waiting for this camera since digital came along. My 35mm SLR's have sort of been replaced with bigger, fatter and heavier DSLR's but to date my 35mm compacts/RF's are still irreplaceable with digital equivalents (I'm ignoring the FF Leica's as I'm not paying the price they charge.) I look forward to that changing. The closest at the moment are the Nex 6 and Fuji jobbies.

I'm sure there's a market for FF compacts (relatively compact) and I bet Sony will sell every RX1 (is that what it's called?) they make as long as they don't expect to sell them in Ixus numbers. I'm sure that Fuji and Sony will shift a lot of FF RF style cameras too and I'm sure they'll cost more than a Nex 6. I'll probably still buy one.

 

[Moreorless]

Yup. If/when I buy a full frame compact I'll almost certainly use it with just one lens, possibly two, just like I used my fixed and interchangeable lens 35mm compacts and RF's. I've been waiting for this camera since digital came along. My 35mm SLR's have sort of been replaced with bigger, fatter and heavier DSLR's but to date my 35mm compacts/RF's are still irreplaceable with digital equivalents (I'm ignoring the FF Leica's as I'm not paying the price they charge.) I look forward to that changing. The closest at the moment are the Nex 6 and Fuji jobbies.

I'm sure there's a market for FF compacts (relatively compact) and I bet Sony will sell every RX1 (is that what it's called?) they make as long as they don't expect to sell them in Ixus numbers. I'm sure that Fuji and Sony will shift a lot of FF RF style cameras too and I'm sure they'll cost more than a Nex 6. I'll probably still buy one.

Look at the US amazon cameras/photo sales charts though...

RX1 = #649

D800 = #76

I'm sure more FF mirrorless cameras will appear but is the market ever going to be big enough to force prices down?

 

[Laudrup]

But you haven't seen it, not a direct side by side comparison. Not easy to do I, and it's not any kind of challenge, but it's the kind of thing I sometimes try just for the heck of it. I've not done a 5x4 lens vs FF for a very long time but the Schneider's problem is its massive image circle and that imposes big optical design constraints and compromises. It's physics, same as why M4/3 lenses can be made sharper than FF.



We have to consider both theory and practise. In IQ terms, bigger is better, but when it comes to actual cameras, when you go bigger than FF they quickly become unwieldy and much less appealing, lenses too. So the market is smaller, consumer demand drops, development investment cannot be justified, spiral of decline.

The net result is prices sky-rocket and even then maximum potential is rarely realised. Medium format digital has one foot in the grave, other than as a super-expensive niche of a niche of a niche. Pentax 645D fell on stony ground, Leica S2 is a folly - and neither of those is anything like true medium format anyway.

What format are they then?

 

[HoppyUK]

What format are they then?

Medium format film, say 645 format, is roughly 60x45mm and has an image area of more than 3x FF.

Leica S series is 30x45mm, 37mp, and only 1.56x the sensor area of FF. Pentax 645D is 33x44mm, 40mp, and 1.68x FF. Only the top end of Hasselblad's mega expensive range gets close to true medium format dimesnions, and all these cameras use versions of Kodak's old CCD sensor that hasn't seen any development work for ages. High ISO performance is feeble.

 

[woof woof]

Look at the US amazon cameras/photo sales charts though...

RX1 = #649

D800 = #76

I'm sure more FF mirrorless cameras will appear but is the market ever going to be big enough to force prices down?

I can't see the prices reaching Nex 6 levels in the near future but TBH I don't see the RX1 as being all that expensive. People seem to be saying that the IQ is good and it's got a nice lens. Once you spec up a DSLR with a similar nice lens I don't think the RX1 is that far out. Just IMVHO.

Obviously with a DSLR you get the OVF/EVF and lots of bells and whistles that the RX1 probably doesn't have but the DSLR can't match the RX1's size/weight.

I might have considered the RX1 but I think I'd like a slightly longer lens and a built in VF. I may well buy a compact FF if and when they can get somewhere near to the bulk if not the weight of a decent 35mm compact or RF.

 

[twist]

The RX1 was made to show the direction that Sony intends to move in, its a special model, I dont think its hugely overpriced either.

 

[Nod]

35mm equivalence is the easiest and most common point of reference. My little Fujis have lenses that zoom from 7.1mm - 28.4mm (X-10) but that means sod all unless you know either the crop factor or the 35mm equivalence. You could guess that 7.1 is wide but it would be a guess as to how wide (although I expect someone will Google then pretend they knew...)! 8mm on 35mm gives a full 180° FoV but a shorter lens on a smaller sensor (obviously) gives a much narrower FoV - about 65 1/2° long side for said 7.1mm on the X-10.

 

[Laudrup]

Medium format film, say 645 format, is roughly 60x45mm and has an image area of more than 3x FF.

Leica S series is 30x45mm, 37mp, and only 1.56x the sensor area of FF. Pentax 645D is 33x44mm, 40mp, and 1.68x FF. Only the top end of Hasselblad's mega expensive range gets close to true medium format dimesnions, and all these cameras use versions of Kodak's old CCD sensor that hasn't seen any development work for ages. High ISO performance is feeble.

In the Leica case you have a larger sensor and much better lenses than a full frame DSLR. If the sensor was significantly larger the lenses would be far more difficult to make and more expensive. I'd take a Hasselblad or S2 over a D800 any day in the same way I'd take a D800 over a crop or MFT.

 

[AshleyC]

The RX1 was made to show the direction that Sony intends to move in, its a special model, I dont think its hugely overpriced either.

Ive been thinking about this just about every day for the last week or so. I just weighed my D800 and 2 lenses, something id want to take on walks with me. It came in at 2.5kg, 6lb in old money. Thats nuts. Finally we're starting to see compact bodies appear with ff sensors and about time too. I think if they stuck a devent viewfinder on this and it came in under 2k that would be awsome. But its a start, roll on 2014, the other big boys must be thinking of FF mirrorless as well.