Fast apertures on the GH5 = Full frame

[Cliff Totten]

Admittedly,...this is going to sound really stupid. However, I think the word "Micro" was a bad choice for the title of this system. People are OK with a 4:3 aspect ratio but nobody wants a "Micro" sensor. All it does is remind people every time it is said that it's a "small" sensor.

Imagine if it was named the "Super 4/3" system"? "Super" 4/3 would have diverted attention away from its size and "psychologically" is a much better marketing name.

Yeah....I know this sounds stupid but sadly, I still think this idea holds true.

Super 4/3....much better "ring" to that name.

 

[noone]

2 hours ago, Castorp said:

 

Another good argument for a smaller sensor is that I think you get more for your money with lenses. Look at the Olympus Pro lenses or the nicest Fujifilm lenses. To get similar quality (and then I'm talking about all aspects of quality) you have to spend far more on a 135 format system. Also optically I think for example that the Fujifilm 56 1.2 is superior to any 135 format 85mm f1.8. With Nikon you have to get into the best lenses, typically the 1.4 lenses, to have a similar quality in build. And those are more expensive. 

I don't see any 135 format 50mm 1.8 compare at all with for example the Olympus 25mm f1.2 Pro in terms of quality. Same goes for bodies by the way. The A7iii is getting a lot of praise but I don't see it comparing well to an EM1ii or XH1 when it comes to the quality of the viewfinder, sealing, general build et c. You have to get up to D850/A7riii level to match, and then we're in another price bracket. 

If you work with long telephoto lenses there are huge cost and weight advantages to using M43. 

There seems to be some sort of boom around 135 happening lately that I haven't seen since the D3 and 5D. Funny how trends bounce back and forwards. 

That depends.     The lenses have to be considered with the camera used.

In any case, I think I much prefer the (cheaper) Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 to the Olympus 25 1.2. (yes it is not 50 but it is close enough).

I have had a LOT of normal lenses including a Canon FD 50 1.2 I loved and Pentax 50 1.2 that I loved to death (it eventually fell apart on me) but the Sony Zeiss has cured me of all of those others.

I also think the FE 85 1.8 is the biggest bargain going in photography for any brand and used on a FF camera I would also prefer it to the Fuji 56 1.2  and the FE 85 is also cheaper than the Fuji.      The FE 85 IS an absolute bargain but it is also an excellent lens and has similarly cured me of all the other 85s I have had (still have an FD 85 1.2 L).

Just my opinion.

EDIT and a couple of other reasons they are even bigger bargains.

Both those lenses (55 1.8 and 85 1.8) can be used as 2x virtually lossless zooms in video (as any other lens can and also for Jpeg stills) and also be used both FF and APSC on the FF Sony E mount cameras.

[Damphousse]

3 hours ago, Castorp said:

I don't see any 135 format 50mm 1.8 compare at all with for example the Olympus 25mm f1.2 Pro in terms of quality.

The Olympus 25mm f1.2 is an $1,100 lens!

3 hours ago, Castorp said:

Another good argument for a smaller sensor is that I think you get more for your money with lenses.

No.

[blondini]

On 5/20/2018 at 4:18 AM, KnightsFan said:

@blondini No, perspective distortion is only affected by distance from the camera to the subject. No matter what sensor/lens combination you use, if the camera and the subjects don't move, then the ratio of the size of two subjects will remain the same. I did a quick and dirty test to illustrate. It's a little imprecise (the camcorder would NOT focus on the guy in front...)

For all three images the camera is in the same place. I suspect the small discrepancies in ratio (2.2% error) are mainly due to moving parts inside the camcorder when it zooms, which changes its actual distance from the subject. But this is an easy thing to test yourself.

First image is a 4mm lens on a 1/4 type sensor

Second image is a 55mm lens on an APS-C sensor

As you can see, the ratio of the figures is the same. You could even use a wider lens and the ratio remains, because the distance has not changed:

Third image is a 2mm lens on the 1/4 type sensor.

 

Quote from Wikipedia:

 

 

 

Yes, it would. As long as the camera is in the same place, the relative size of the plane compared to the people will remain the same regardless of the lens or sensor. If you don't believe me or my Legos, go try it yourself!

Ah cool, thanks for this. It was a piece of misinformation that an older DoP passed on to me and I've held on to for a while now. But you've explained this very well. I think its the way I use different focal lengths that has helped hard wired in this instinct. And it's actually and instinct of proximity rather than focal length.

[Pedro]

15 hours ago, Timotheus said:

It can be the same. Put your m4/3 camera with a 25mm f1.4 next to a FF cam with a 50mm at F2.8. The framing and DOF will be identical. See the many examples above for more info.

As a side note: I would like to cheer everyone participating in this nerdy thread on equivalence for not getting into petty arguments (i.e. the way this subject normally ends up being debated haha).

I don't agree at all.
Its not about DOF. Its about distortion and compression.
FF is not just about DOF and all m4/3 users should understand how optics affect the image .You can't get a 50mm look in a m4/3 with a 25mm. You can however buy a speed booster, use FF lenses to get an approximated look...
 

 

[ntblowz]

52 minutes ago, Pedro said:

I don't agree at all.
Its not about DOF. Its about distortion and compression.
FF is not just about DOF and all m4/3 users should understand how optics affect the image .You can't get a 50mm look in a m4/3 with a 25mm. You can however buy a speed booster, use FF lenses to get an approximated look...

 

 

 

I guess once you actually own the cameras of different sensor you will know, right now you just keyboard analyzing

[Pedro]

3 minutes ago, ntblowz said:

 

I guess once you actually own the cameras of different sensor you will know, right now you just keyboard analyzing

I do own a gh2 and a a6500 with turbo booster (0.7 crop)... so not a FF yet

[Timotheus]

@Pedro Please do the test. This is not about opinions.

The pictures you share illustrate the behaviour of different focal lengths on a given sensor size.

The whole point is the effect of different sensor sizes trying to frame exactly the same scene from the same distance. You can shoot the exact same picture on those different sensor-sized camera's by using equivalent lenses (see my previous post for example).

This also goes for your GH2 and a6500. Tell us what lenses you own and we can help you try it out.

[TwoScoops]

1 hour ago, Pedro said:

I don't agree at all.
Its not about DOF. Its about distortion and compression.
FF is not just about DOF and all m4/3 users should understand how optics affect the image .You can't get a 50mm look in a m4/3 with a 25mm. You can however buy a speed booster, use FF lenses to get an approximated look...
 

 

 

These don't really work for this discussion since with a crop sensor you're further back = less distortion. 

[Pedro]

39 minutes ago, Timotheus said:

@Pedro Please do the test. This is not about opinions.

The pictures you share illustrate the behaviour of different focal lengths on a given sensor size.

The whole point is the effect of different sensor sizes trying to frame exactly the same scene from the same distance. You can shoot the exact same picture on those different sensor-sized camera's by using equivalent lenses (see my previous post for example).

This also goes for your GH2 and a6500. Tell us what lenses you own and we can help you try it out.

Can't do the test because I don't own a FF camera. (have a panasonic 25mm, sony E mount 35, and bunch of vintage lenses, vivitar 24mm f2.8(not sure), super takumar 50mm f1.4, jupiter 85 f2, super takumar 135mm f3.5, mamiya 200 f3.5. 
As for the or the lego test, I am not sure I understood the results... 1/4 sensor and 2mm lens- what is this?
anyway sorry the distances from the camera are not the same, and the results are not clear either because there is no background. But damm I really would like to be proven wrong, and I appreciate your replys and the topic.

17 minutes ago, TwoScoops said:

 

These don't really work for this discussion since with a crop sensor you're further back = less distortion. 

nope there is wall behind us... we can't go back further.
 

[Inazuma]

30 minutes ago, Pedro said:

But damm I really would like to be proven wrong, and I appreciate your replys and the topic.
 

Did you actually look at Andrew's article? he takes one picture with an m43 camera and 17mm and another with a full frame camera and 35mm. The perspective is shown to be the same. If this wasn't true then most everything you see on daytime TV would be extremely distorted as a lot of is filmed with small focal lengths due to small video sensors.

[no_connection]

3 hours ago, Pedro said:

I don't agree at all.
Its not about DOF. Its about distortion and compression.

You are 100% missing the point. Go back and reread posts and watch the video.

[Damphousse]

3 hours ago, Timotheus said:

The pictures you share illustrate the behaviour of different focal lengths on a given sensor size.

I think you guys are both missing a couple of things.  Maybe Pedro isn't taking into account the camera to subject distance on different size sensors and you aren't taking into account that extreme wide angle lenses have more inherent distortion and aren't as sharp as longer lenses.

CAN you get a similar look on a M43 camera as a full frame?  Sure but after all the hoops you have to jump through and the amount of money spent why bother unless you really need a particular camera and it happens to only come in M43 flavor?

If someone gave me a choice of a fixed lens budget and said would you rather have your portrait taken with a tele lens on 35mm or a wide angle on M43 it would be a no brainer.

And really I prefer medium format film to tiny 35mm cameras.  You start off with an 80mm normal lens and go up from there for portraits.

[fuzzynormal]

5 hours ago, Pedro said:

You can't get a 50mm look in a m4/3 with a 25mm.

Ummmm....

[Pedro]

1 hour ago, no_connection said:

You are 100% missing the point. Go back and reread posts and watch the video.

Sorry, which video?
I get the point... just shocked at the evidence presented, and quite possible in denial

[Don Kotlos]

3 minutes ago, Pedro said:

Sorry, which video?
I get the point... just shocked at the evidence presented, and quite possible in denial

In the test that you posted, the differences that you see in perspective are because of the different distances of the camera to the face. The focal length just changes the FoV. So in order to keep the same DoF you have to move the camera at different distances, which gives rise to different perspective. If you changed the sensor size in order to match the FoV, you wouldn't have to move the camera and thus the perspective would not be different. 

For example were you to have a camera with a very high resolution so you can crop, you could use a wide angle lens from far away and it could give you the same compression as the 300mm. 

[Pedro]

I understand Dan. Thanks.
I guess I was wrong. 

[Damphousse]

14 minutes ago, Don Kotlos said:

In the test that you posted, the differences that you see in perspective are because of the different distances of the camera to the face.

Perspective is not the only thing dramatically affecting the image.  You are leaving out the dollar for dollar increased inherent distortion in wide angle lenses.

I'll say it again.  You are fighting physics.

[KnightsFan]

17 hours ago, horshack said:

I don't see what you're basing that intuition/assumption on. There is no equivalence theory to apply here - optics/ray angles don't change based on sensor size. The only impact on sensor size would be using a larger-format lens on a smaller sensor, where some of the rays are thus cropped (don't reach the image sensor), but that's not what we're speaking to here - the Voigtlander is a native lens.

I'm probably wrong, I'll need to read up more on lens design. It was an intuition based on the fact that scaling an object doesn't change any angles--but again, I am not sure it's right. I hoped someone could explain why it was right or wrong.

 

 

@Brian Caldwell That's how I understood you before, thanks for clarifying!

[Don Kotlos]

2 minutes ago, Damphousse said:

Perspective is not the only thing dramatically affecting the image.  You are leaving out the dollar for dollar increased inherent distortion in wide angle lenses.

I'll say it again.  You are fighting physics.

I don't disagree with the fact that smaller sensors require far better glass in order to get similar performance to larger sensors. 

But the differences that are visible in that test are mostly due to perspective and not distortion, which is really a problem when shooting architecture (both stills & video). 

In any case, I believe the m4/3 still has its place. Small cameras such as the E-M5ii or the PenF coupled with tiny lenses such as the 17/1.8 and 45/1.8 are a joy to carry around your neck and shoot all day long. Something that even the A7rIII & the 35/2.8 cannot really achieve. If on the other hand you are after image quality or shallow DoF, then instead of start buying expensive & large glass for m4/3, my opinion is that a FF camera will offer a much better solution for the same price/size/weight. 

Thats why I wish Olympus & Panasonic really put an effort to keep their systems small enough but pleasurable to shoot with. For example I would really love a PenF or a GX9 with a state of the art HUGE EVF that I would want to use instead of using subpar components like the GX9 did in order to save costs  ( I would also remove at least half the buttons from these cameras  ).