dishe

Andrew, does the Canon EF line (along with the Metabones Speedbooster) present a better lens array for GH4 owners, vs the Nikon mount?  I've been told the Nikon lens options are plenty and also very affordable for GH4 owners.  What's your opinion?

For starters, the Nikon mount adapter is passive. This lets you use electronic features like IS, which is super cool. I imagine a future firmware update could allow things like focus confirmation or assist tools (full blown AF would likely be too slow and clumsy like it is on the NEX adapter).

But for many of us, Canon is our "other camera body". I shoot stills with a Canon, and video with a MFT. I started off shooting Canon for both back in the day before there were better options, as many of us did (heck, the site is even called EOS(as in Canon mount)HD.

Interesting that they released the BMPCC version first- that's weird, isn't it? Aren't there WAY MORE micro43 users out there? And wouldn't it simpler to implement because the standard sized 0.7x reducer is their staple optic?

Either way, I'm excited and waiting for the standard MFT to come out ASAP. I was just lamenting that I want to buy a lens and can't decide if I want Nikon or Canon mount. Canon mount has the advantage of ALSO working for photography on my Canon cameras. Nikon mount means I don't need my Canon body around to change aperture. I'd really like the best of both worlds, so this can't come soon enough!!

Any rumors as to how soon we'll see it? I hope Perplex isn't correct that 3-5 month window. That's too long!

Was poking around for a deal on one of these 35-70s, stumbled upon a relatively unspoken gem (or so the critics claim) that is the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.

The Nikon version has an aperture dial, runs about the same price as that Nikkor zoom I mentioned, yet has a larger useful range and has been compared optically to the Canon L of this type. Its no 50-150, but for the price I'd be crazy to pass this mid-range up!

Just wanted to follow up on this. Apparently there are 2 versions of the Tamron, one with a gold ring (black letters) that was made in Japan, and another one that is black with gold letters, made in China. Don't get the black one!

This is becoming almost surreal... and I take it your response to the video is to go out and purchase a... Canon 5D MkIII??

No, I think the point is that the traction behind these cameras are not all necessarily unanimous. Some people love it, other's don't. So look at it and make your own decision! There are quite a few things that don't impress me about the GH4, but I still think its a fine camera for most things.

Nothing wrong with a reminder now and then that our tastes differ and YMMV. There isn't any one camera that everyone agrees is perfect.

Also, there are too many conversations going on at once in here. Why is this a single thread instead of a section again?

its a push pull zoom ....so beware of that , but optically it is stunning though! and they are cheap on ebay
low cost Bourne look !!

Was poking around for a deal on one of these 35-70s, stumbled upon a relatively unspoken gem (or so the critics claim) that is the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.

The Nikon version has an aperture dial, runs about the same price as that Nikkor zoom I mentioned, yet has a larger useful range and has been compared optically to the Canon L of this type. Its no 50-150, but for the price I'd be crazy to pass this mid-range up!

That sounds pretty awesome, but what about the much more affordable 35-70 nikkor 2.8?

On third thought (sorry, doing this from my phone and can't figure out how to edit posts), the nikkor zoom I'm talking about is 35-70 2.8 and much more affordable.

Whoops - just noticed you had actually mentioned that nikkor on the previous page.

So what's your take on the difference between them?

Nice!

Also just brought to my attention is the flagship nikkor zoom from the 90s in approximately the same range as that.
It has full manual control of focus and aperture despite being more recent, and has the qualities and sharpness of modern flagship nikkors from what I've seen so far. They are relatively affordable too! Wonder how it compares to the one you are talking about...

I agree with a previous poster in this thread that it should be a SECTION and not a single thread, all about lenses!

Gh2 and g6.

Yes the Tamron's focus gear has a penchant for drama. But I've been using it since the days of Canon DSLR, and have gotten used to it years ago. It only got easier on m43.

Here's a question for this thread:
Looking for a good mid range zoom for doc work on a budget. I bought the 35-105 3.5 fd zoom after reading about its legendary performance, and while the range is nice, I'm not so impressed with the color, and sharpness is just Ok imo.

I have a Tamron 17-50 2.8 which has excellent color, but needs to be stopped down a lot to get sharp on the 50mm end.

The lumix 35-100 2.8 would be wonderful but outside my price range.

I'd like the g6 to be included in this test. I require a mic jack to be included in any camera I consider, so the gx7, while cuter and sporting a newer sensor, isn't as desirable as the g6 which sports that famous Gh2 sensor while offering 60p and a normal sized mic jack (finally! No more 2.5mm adapters) while also being cheaper than the gx7.

If it does AF and IS and sells for no more than $400, it will be on the top of my shopping list.

You and me both!

I'm talking about avarage. Most of m43 sensors have worse DR than FF sensors released in the same time.

The OM-D actually has 12.7 stops vs the 5D's 11.7. There are quite a few pro photographers that have blogged about adopting the OM-D, biggest downside compared to the 5D being the crop sensor meaning they have to rethink their DOF calculation.

Can't generalize all MFT sensors based on your experience with a particular one, is all I'm saying. You can like the 5D more than the GH4, but don't say its because the bigger sensor automatically gives it more DR. :P
 

But you said in the beginning that you should compare GH4 Lens: 25mm f2.8 to 5D3 Lens: 50mm f5.6. And now you are comparing FF 1.4 to m43 1.4? :huh:

Now I'm confused. If you are referring to that other discussion, I was the one who was rallying for 1.4 is a 1.4 is a 1.4. Aperture is rated in f-stops and is consistent across formats. A wider aperture lens is more complicated to build than a smaller one. Its harder to make large glass equally sharp to cover a wider FOV than a smaller one. All of the above statements are true to the best of my knowledge.
 

That AF is very poor. No m43 version yet. Does not solve other SB issues.

The AF isn't bad for the occasional snapshot, but I did admit that it isn't a strength of the platform. There isn't an m43 version yet just because metabones is supposedly working out the electronics to communicate (they had already figured out how to do it with Sony a while back, guess m43 is more complicated). This isn't a fault of the concept, its just that only one company has decided to do it and they're taking their time before bringing it to market. This isn't a fault of focal reducers as a concept. Again, you are generalizing about a concept based on specific examples that may-or-may-not really be applicable as a whole.

Also, what do you mean "other SB issues"? Gaining a stop of light? Does that sound awful to you? :P

Hopefully they will actually release an EF to MFT version, unlike Metabones.

From the mounts listed above, it sounds like they are likely sourcing the same blueprints that all the Chinese adapters are using for their focal reducers (Mitakon, RJ Camera, etc), and probably putting a higher quality optic inside. The EF mount is included in that list.

Don't get me wrong, Sigma makes some real quality stuff, it won't be as cheap as the RJ/Mitakon/no-name, etc ones. But that being said, I'm betting it will be a passive EF mount like the others that already exist. The hold up with Metabones is that they want to make an electronic version like their NEX mount (iris control, and possibly even IS and AF). I doubt Sigma would beat them to the punch on that, Metabones has experience adapting the electronics and interfacing with another camera mount, whereas Sigma does not. They'll probably just release another RJ/Mitakon/no-name ring adapter with better glass.

Also, from what I understand, Metabones achieves this without edge softness (as opposed to the others who do). Not sure if theirs is also aspherical or not, but it'll HAVE to be priced lower to be competitive since they already are the brand name ruling the market.

• wider dynamic range (and color depth?): GH4 has new, very good sensor (released in 2014) so it looks nice, but only compared to old FF sensors (5D3 is 2 years old now). FF A7s (and more today's / upcoming FF sensors) will be probably noticeable better.

Does the the fact that one sensor is overall bigger really create more DR? I'm under the impression that isn't the case. Its a combination of sensor tech and photosite size IMO, not overall size of the grid. Remember, the sensor overall is just a grid of photosites. You could have a smaller sensor with the same sized photosites (just not as many of them) and same tech generation producing the same results as the full frame one. Or heck, even BETTER results. While the examples you give are somewhat accurate, it is not necessarily on account of one sensor being larger. You are just comparing two specific models with circumstantial data!

• f/2 lenses renders image much better than f/1 lenses (resolution, coma, abberations...): m43 25mm/0.95 @0.95 will look much worse than FF 50mm @ 1.8. In theory SpeedBooster would help, but there is no SB currently changing GH4 2.2x crop to 1.0x.

That has to do with the quality control of glass at that size. Here's the thing- smaller lenses are actually easier to built with higher precision. So you may actually find that a full frame 1.4 wide open is softer in the middle than a native micro 4/3 of the same aperture is. That's why they are able to make those tiny lenses for small chip camcorders and cell phones so sharp, whereas if you blew up a SLR photo from the same area of glass, it would likely be noticeably softer. But anyway, this is mostly relevant for photography, as the resolution for video is much more forgiving.

• SB is not a perfect solution: additional cost, not native lenses = no AF (so much less usable for stills), sometimes bigger lens than necessary, some small technical problems (focus to infinity, weak aperture ring on adapter, soft edges..), one SB cost per lens mount (with A7s you can use many lens mounts with cheap simple adapters).

You know, the EOS to NEX speedbooster DOES support electronics to make it act native? I think you even get IS. They haven't brought that to MFT yet, but plan to as well. So yes, right now you can buy a crop Sony, throw an EOS SB on it and use native EOS lenses for photography, with AF. As I understand it, the AF performance isn't as quick, but again- we're really discussing for video here anyway.

Perhaps- I'm thinking it isn't as impossible as you may say. We have a 25mm f/0.95 lens which is pretty sharp open- its actually easier to make one that covers a smaller sensor since you don't need as much glass (image circle can be made smaller). That's why you don't see many FF lenses less than 1.2 and medium format below 2, however they are popular and plentiful in the size under them.

Because an often ignored fact is, that DoF has another factor: CoC, introducing the pixel size as equally important as the sensor size, or in other words: The sensor size means nothing unless you don't know the pixel size on it. The same lens with the same aperture will have different DoFs at different ISOs. How is that? Because using higher than the sensor's native ISO results in lower resolution. The pixels with actual signals within the noise are being sampled over time (video of cause), but they effectively behave like bigger (and therefore less) pixels, increasing the depth of field.

 

EDIT: On the net, this correlation is frequently denied, stating that higher ISO allowed for smaller apertures and that this alone would then increase the DoF. I admit that CoC combined with ISO is not a very obvious factor. There should be tests executed by maintaining exposure exclusively with ISO and NDs to prove or refute the theory.

 

All this math to reliably compare just too many contributing factors is futile imo. 

I'm not sure that I understand what you are talking about here. Resolution effects DOF?? Since when?? 5D mark 1, 2 and 3 all have different sized pixels and resolution, yet a 50mm f/1.4 renders the same DOF on all of them. What basis would there be to assume otherwise?

 

If one were to wish to obtain the same look on m43 they'd need a 40mm f1.2 and it's simply not possible to get a high performance lens of this type.  

 

Not so fast. Nikon has a 55mm f/1.2, and you could throw that on a speedbooster to yield an effective 38.5mm f/0.9.

 

Many ways to skin a cat... ;)

Lumia's gots the MEGA megapixels!  :lol:

Is it just me or was the guy's rant totally unnecessary?  

 

Everything about this video is totally unnecessary. The internet as a whole is stupider because of it, IMO.

Don't want to make it a fight (or any more of a fight than it has been in this thread...) but...
 
It is much harder to make a full-frame f/2.8 than a m43 f/2.8 - that was part of the point of my earlier post. You have to produce a quality image circle that is 4x the area, which takes more glass and a lot more precision.

This is true. The full frame f/2.8 are bigger and heavier due to the increased coverage. But then there's volume vs supply & demand. Canon's lens will fit on a variety of cameras, with an exponentially larger user base than micro 4/3. That means they can afford to charge less on each one and still make enough money to be worth the effort. Panasonic, meanwhile, needs to charge more because they won't sell anywhere near as many. I'm sure they'd like to charge even more for it than they are now, but it wouldn't seem fair for them to charge significantly more than what other manufacturers charge for a similar spec option. 

 

I know it sounds like a weak excuse, but that's business. I opted for a particular phone handset that wasn't as popular as others and dealt with the same thing - was considering a Samsung Galaxy S3 back in the day, went with a relatively unknown LG model instead. When I wanted to buy accessories, spare batteries, cases, etc. Galaxy S3 options were plentiful and super cheap. Finding an option for my LG was much more expensive for the same thing, simply because it was a less common item to find. 

The compact kit lens that comes with the camera is technically more complicated than that 25mm f/1.4 prime, but they are a dime a dozen and can't hold the same price value as the fast prime.

 

Bottom line here is that creating an F/2.8 constant aperture zoom is a more complicated and expensive endeavor than their previous offerings. They should be allowed to charge more for it, and they do.
 

I think a lot of this discussion is being prompted by the competing cameras with different formats, but also by the speedbooster and like products. We know now that you can take a full frame lens and bolt on some more glass and get a great product  for a crop sensor with an amazing aperture that outcompetes the "native" crop lenses in many ways. And people love it. So why are the lens makers for smaller formats producing lenses that just match the aperture of the larger format lenses, when the speedbooster makes it clear that they could do better?

Actually, I've heard that there are Olympus f/2.0 zooms that are exactly that: Lenses originally designed for larger formats with an optical reduction element in the back. They aren't cheap either.

Oh, one more thing (since I'm getting it all out of my system).

 

To those who agree with his assertion that camera manufacturers are somehow "ripping you off" because the F/2.8 works more like a 5.6:

 

Understand that wider apertures are more expensive to engineer and produce than smaller ones. The glass is larger and heavier and requires more quality control in the optics. Canon doesn't charge more based on the DOF you get by using it, they charge more because it is technically more complicated to produce a constant aperture zoom with that amount of sharpness and aperture.
Whether you are getting the same DOF as a full frame camera or not, the glass being produced by crop sensor manufacturers like Panasonic has an aperture of F/2.8. The aperture is a measurement of how light passes through that lens, and the lens in this situation IS, in fact, an f/2.8. So why should they not be allowed to charge what an F/2.8 costs? Because YOU don't find it as useful as it is on a full frame? How is that a fault of the lens? It still transmits the same intensity of light, has the same DOF (if you are strictly calculating aperture to distance-to-subject, as it should be), still costs them the same amount of R&D to make because it IS actually a 2.8 aperture. So why are they ripping you off by charging the requisite amount for it? 

 

Don't get me wrong, I wish it were cheaper, but it seems appropriately priced for what it is. 

No need to apologize but I don't think you have the technical understanding to know what you're talking about.  Please stop making yourself look foolish.  

 

Your argument is that (quoting you verbatim) "it it were an F/5.6, images would be extremely dark indoors."  And you're here calling people *asinine*?  Your understanding of how light passes through the lens and how the data is written to your memory card, and everything in between is probably beginner level at best.

 

Just because you are being loud, obnoxious and trying to demonstrate the little knowledge that you have about technology doesn't make you correct.

 

If you had watched the video and read what people are actually saying in the comments, (which you obviously didn't do) is that these small lenses and sensors are delivering *the equivalent of* lenses of higher F-stop numbers when it comes to DOF and noise, and by not making it obvious to everyday consumers, they are getting away with charging premium prices.  But you probably just glanced over it and didn't even catch the *when it comes to DOF and noise* part, and you're just trying to prove everyone wrong without listening to what was said first.

 

Ok, I'll give you one thing- perhaps I was a bit more rude than necessary. I did watch the video, and I even participated in some of the comments there. I don't usually get riled up over petty things on the internet, but this is a subject that is very dear to me. I have engineering in my blood, my father holds some patents involving polarized glass, and I used to teach production mechanics to a high school extra-curricular program. I spent a lot of time as a kid learning about optics with my dad, so when someone starts spreading misinformation on the internet that is accepted like gospel, it stirs something up inside of me. 

 

I apologize if I came off as stand-offish, and if I insulted anyone personally, I truly did not mean it. At worst, I tried to insult ideas which I know to be wrong, but never insult the people saying them (however, your words above are a bit more personal- just saying).
Since I'm clearly stepping on some people's toes, I'll politely back into my corner. Right or wrong, I'm not in this to prove anything about myself. It may be telling, however, that Andrew's opinion (who's technical prowess is why this site exists in the first place) agrees with me. And anyone who seems to know a thing or two about this stuff appears to be arguing with that video. You want to call me a liar? Good luck with that. I'm done.

 

Andrew- I'm sorry I asked you to unlock this thread. I really thought we could help set the record straight, but it appears that we may have just confused a lot more people. :(