April 19, 2014, 06:34:31 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - jd7

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Reviews / Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« on: April 14, 2014, 08:19:26 PM »

If Canon made an error with the pricing I think it was with the 40mm pancake. The lens is just too good for the price ! Canon could easily have 'crippled' it in such a way as to stop people like myself buying it; just give it a plastic bayonet mount, and that's the likes of me out of the frame.

Regarding the statement "there's not a lot in it', I'd say "There's nothing in it' !  ;)

SSSHHHHH!!!  Don't want Canon realising they've let a product onto the market that's not just a good product, but is good value as well!  Just think how depressing that would be for the managers, after all their hard work overpricing everything else in the last few years ...
 :)

2
Reviews / Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« on: April 14, 2014, 08:16:45 PM »

Glorious Decay by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

Very nice photo Dustin - I don't have experience with the Sigma 35 1.4 Art, but that photo looks pretty good to me!  However, I wonder if the Tamron 24-70 VC could have produced something pretty similar?  I don't believe my Sigma 24-70 2.8 could - it's just not that sharp at 2.8.

3
Reviews / Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« on: April 14, 2014, 09:41:17 AM »
Thanks for your thoughts Dustin.  And I do agree with you about primes - I do find something fun about using them which I don't usually feel about zooms (although the 70-200 2.8L comes close!).  It's just that I can't quite shake the feeling the price of the 35IS is still a little on the high side when you weigh up the pros and cons compared to options like the Tamron 24-70 VC, the Sigma 35 1.4 Art and Canon's own 40 pancake.  Anyway, I'm enjoying the 35IS at the moment, so for now maybe more time spent shooting and less time thinking about gear would be the best idea!   

4
Lenses / Re: New 50mm Sigma ? There are other options !
« on: April 13, 2014, 01:07:51 AM »
Perhaps my biggest reservation about the 35IS relates to the 40mm pancake.  Comparing them:
...
- my think the 35IS has slightly nicer bokeh, but there's not a whole lot in it
...

I would argue with that. If we compare bokeh quality (not quantity), then the 40 is producing smoother and nicer bokeh. I really think that 35IS is much worse there.

Quote
- has 67 filter thread, which means you may already have filters you can use on it (unlikely with the pancake)

- the 40 has 52mm thread, which means you can adapt any larger filter. I'm using 52mm-to-58mm adapter, which acts like a lens hood as well :). (Hint: ES-52)

Quote
If you have enough light though, the 35IS's IQ advantage doesn't seem to be that great really, so if you're using it in well lit conditions, it's less clear to me whether that advantage is worth the extra cost/weight/size.

Having IS for videos is worth a lot and that's what this lens is mostly good for (in my opinion), but handholdability of the f/2+IS with not-so-good bokeh (which is pretty bad at longer distances) is a no-go for me. I'd choose a lesser evil for stills - 35/1.4 or the pancake.

Interesting to hear you prefer the bokeh of the 40.  I will have to experiment some more.  In particular, I probably haven't looked much at bokeh at longer distances.  I think I might have to have a look at getting a 52 to 58 step up adapter too!

And no doubt you're right about IS and videos.  To be honest I completely overlooked video!  I'm yet to get interested in video and simply forgot about it.

PS - I moved my earlier post to the thread about Dustin Abbot's 35IS review.  It seemed more appropriate for the discussion there.

5
Reviews / Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« on: April 12, 2014, 11:53:15 PM »
Another nice review by Dustin. I do like seeing what a lens can do when it's not just shooting a test chart!

My (very much unprofessional) $0.02 ... I currently have the 35IS and it's growing on me, but I'd call it a very nice lens rather than an amazing one. 

Perhaps my biggest reservation about the 35IS relates to the 40mm pancake.  Comparing them:
- my feeling is the 35IS is a little sharper, but there's not a whole lot in it
- my feeling is the 35IS has slightly better colour and contrast, but there's not a lot in it
- my thinking is the 35IS has slightly nicer bokeh, but there's not a whole lot in it
- the 35IS has noticeably faster and quieter AF - but that's not to say the pancake is bad in those respects, so query how much difference this is likely to make in practice (no doubt it depends in large part on what you're shooting)
- the 35IS feels more substantial and hence makes you think it may have better build quality - but I have no idea whether, in reality, the 35IS is likely to be any more durable.  (In this case I strongly suspect it is likely to be more durable than the pancake, but all the same I get sick of reading statements which seem to equate weight with build quality, and conclude anything light weight is lesser quality.  Isn't that like saying something made of steel is always a higher build quality than something made of titanium or carbon fibre?)
- of course, the 35IS has a one stop aperture advantage (which you'd rather have than not), and IS (worth at least another 3 stops - which allows you longer shutter times / lower ISO)
- the 35IS has 67 filter thread, which means you may already have filters you can use on it (unlikely with the pancake)
- the extra 5 mm of width (in the focal length) is noticeable on the 35IS but again, it's not very different - and to the extent there is a difference, each has its pros and cons
- much better focus ring

Weighed against that, the 35IS is around 3x more expensive than the pancake, substantially larger and over 2.5x heavier (even if it still ranks as a relatively small and light lens in the bigger scheme of things).

So, my question remains about the value of the 35IS compared with the pancake.  The 35IS clearly offers more flexibility in that if you want to be able to handhold shots of still subjects in low light, the 35IS is way in front.  If you're subject is moving, the 35IS still has the advantage but the gap is much closer.  If you have enough light though, the 35IS's IQ advantage doesn't seem to be that great really, so if you're using it in well lit conditions, it's less clear to me whether that advantage is worth the extra cost/weight/size.

Put another way, and taking the position most people can hand hold a 35mm or 40mm lens at 1/60 second in most circumstances (noting the debate in one of the other message threads about whether 1/focal length is a suitable guide or if these days it's closer to 1/double the focal length, I'll use a compromise here), if you'll use the lens in circumstances where you want to handhold shots at shutter times longer than 1/60 second, the 35IS offers a clear advantage (and more so as you get into the 1/30 second range and longer).  Otherwise, though, you're paying quite a lot more for only extra stop of shallow depth of field ability, and a few other things which may be of limited practical value to some people (eg the better AF).

Even so, I'm enjoying shooting with the 35IS at the moment.  That could be just the "new toy" effect though - I'll see over the next few months how much use it gets.  I do agree though with person above who commented on how small the 6D becomes with the pancake on it - which is of value to me, given I tend to use this lens as a general walk around lens.

Dustin, if you have time, it would be great to hear your thoughts on what you see the 35IS adding to your kit compared with the 40 pancake, and also compared with your Tamron 24-70 VC.

6
Lenses / Re: New 50mm Sigma ? There are other options !
« on: April 12, 2014, 10:10:05 PM »
One other thing not mentioned yet is the Canon 35 F/2 has an actual t-stop of 2.  The 35L has a T-stop of t/1.6.  So it's not really a full stop advantage when shooting in low light.  That would be about a half a stop advantage??

I got this part, although its actually 2/3 stop.

So in a low light situation, camera 1 with the 35L would shoot at f/1.4, 1/60, iso 800.  Camera 2 with the 35 IS would shoot f/2, 1/60, Not iso 1600, but 1200.  Sure theres half a stop more noise but you gain significantly more depth of field which is a huge plus with certain situations.

This is where you lost me. Are you saying camera 1 with the 35L cannot simply select f/2, 1/60 and ISO 1600 to gain the deeper field of focus?
By the way, while the transmittance of the 35L might not be as higher than the 35IS as advertized, the big DoF advantage (shallowness, when THAT situation arises) still remains unaffected.

I think the point bmwzimmer was getting at is if both cameras/lenses were at f/2 and 1/60, the camera with the 35L would be at ISO1600 while the camera with the 35IS would be at ISO1200, giving a noise advantage in the photo taken with the 35IS.  Or alternatively, if you're trying to stop action, it's not a case of saying the 35L can shoot with half the shutter time which the 35IS would require - it's more like the 35L would be at two-thirds of the shutter time the 35IS would require (despite the 35L being at f/1.4 while the 35IS is at f/2).

7

One option would be the Sigma 35mm 1.4, which is at the very top of the price range I could consider ($900). Coming in a little less would be the Canon 35mm 2.0. Would I notice enough of a quality upgrade going from the 40 to the 35? Anything else I should be considering?

Thanks.

I have had the 40 2.8 for a while and recently picked up a 35 2 IS, and I'm using them on a 6D.  I haven't had a chance to play too much with the 35 yet, but my initial impression is the image quality is pretty similar to the 40.  So far I'd say the 35 might be a touch better, but it's not by much.  I do notice 35 is wider than 40 - I prefer the 35 for things like street photography, but if you've got anyone reasonably close to the camera then I'd pick the 40 (just that little bit longer means a little bit less enlargement of noses, etc - but of course neither is likely to be a great choice for a close up portrait!).  The 35 is pretty sharp even at f2 so you I'd say you get a genuinely usable extra stop there (provided the DOF is enough for your purpose), but the biggest difference is the IS. As long as your subject isn't moving, the IS means you can take sharp handheld shots in MUCH lower light than you can with the 40. Or if there's a bit more light (and a stationary subject), you can use the IS to keep your ISO down that much more.

I might change my mind after I've had more chance to play with the 35, but so far I'd say it's a very nice lens which works as advertised - it's pretty sharp even at f2 and the IS does a good job - but it hasn't wowed me yet (except to the extent I've been able to hand hold shots in very low light).  And compared to the 40 it's very expensive, not to mention significantly bigger and heavier (even if it's small and light compared with many lenses), and the IQ is not so different.

To pick up on a few points others have made -
Agree that a good flash would be worth investigating. It can make a huge difference (in the right situation).
I've never used the Sigma 18-35 1.8 but from everything I've read, I'd be taking a good look at one if I was shooting with a crop sensor.
I used a 28 1.8 on crop and did like it as a general walk around lens.  It doesn't get good reviews and it does get softer than you'd like pretty quickly once you move away from the centre of the frame, but equally (on crop) I didn't think it was as bad as some people made out. If you're shooting for your own enjoyment, I'd say have a good look at one. If you're shooting professionally, it's weaknesses might be more significant.

I read in a recent thread that Dustin Abbott isn't too far from completing a review of the 35 2 IS.  I will be very interested to see what his take on it is.  I'm very much in the amateur photographer camp, so I'll be interested to see what someone like Dustin has to say about it.

PS - as another suggestion, maybe a 17-55 2.8 IS if you can find one within your budget (maybe look 2nd hand)?  I liked it a lot on crop (well, it does have to be on crop after all!) and the IS can be useful.  If it was me shooting with your gear, I think I'd be looking at the 17-55 2.8 IS, the Sigma 18-35 1.8 or a flash (subject to budget of course).

8
Lenses / Re: Canon 35 2 IS v Canon 40 2.8 pancake
« on: January 24, 2014, 05:14:59 PM »
Thanks to all of you for comments - they're greatly appreciated!

To try to respond to a few of the comments and questions ...

I'm having a bit of trouble working out which focal length/s I prefer! For a long time I shot a crop sensor camera with 24mm (ie wide end of 24-70) as my widest option, which is close to 40mm in FF FOV terms, and I've only belatedly started to appreciate what I was missing out on in not having something wider.  That said, I've done some playing around with my 24-70 on the 6D now and I'm starting to like 35mm.  I'm finding I often feel like 50mm is either not wide enough or not long enough. In comparison, I feel like 35mm lets the photo "breath" a little bit more - wide enough to give a subject a bit more context, and the slight distortion (correct expression?) towards the corners adds a bit of interest to the photo.

I've thought about just keeping the 28 1.8.  It may not be great but my feeling is it's not as bad as many of the reviews make out (or perhaps I got a good copy ... or I'm just not very discerning!).  For the size and cost, I liked it a lot as a general purpose walk around lens on crop.  On FF though I feel like I'm noticing its lack of resolution away from the centre more (well, I guess I'm seeing more away from the centre now), plus I feel like 28 is getting a bit wider than I'd like so I just don't see myself going out for a day with just the 28.  Why is wider than I'd like?  My plan is to use this lens (ie a lens around the 28mm to 40mm mark) for things like street photography, travel when I want to go light/inconspicuous, if I'm meeting friends (could well be at night) and want to be able to take some casual shots without the camera seeming too obtrusive.  I feel like 28 starts to get a bit wide for people shots - it's fine if you have one or two people and you keep them close to the centre, but if you've got people towards the edges the distortion is likely to be too much.  Anyway, I'm just not feeling excited about the 28 so it's not spending much time on my camera, so think I'd be better off selling it.

Given what I've said about the 50mm focal length, why not sell my Sigma 50 1.4, especially since it's not a compact lens?  Well, I seem to have a fairly good one (I haven't had too much problem with its AF), I like the bokeh it can produce and the IQ generally, I doubt I'd get a whole lot if I sold it (used market here in Australia is a bit limited I think) and it's my only 1.4 aperture lens!  And I'm not ready to give up on the 50mm focal length yet.  I've seen plenty of great photos taken with a 50!  I think it may be a case of me getting a clearer idea in my mind of when it's the "right" focal length for what I want to do.

As for the 40 pancake I really do like it.  The IQ seems great to me, and it's small size and weight are fantastic.  Even compared to the 28 1.8 (which I believe is slightly smaller than the 35 2 IS), the camera feels so much smaller and "easier" to carry with the 40.  It feels like you're basically just carrying the body - there is (almost) nothing sticking off the front of it, so it's very easy to carry, squeeze into a bag, etc.  On the other hand, somehow I feel like if I'm going to be limited to a single focal length, I should have a wider aperture than 2.8.  The reality is for much of what I'd be shooting with this lens, 2.8 is probably enough - but I do like shallow DOF field shots and I'd really like to have the option to go wider than 2.8 even when I'm just wandering around.  Also, I rarely shoot off a tripod so having IS would be valuable to me.  It won't help with subject movement (to state the obvious) but I can see it being useful to me in many circumstances where I'd use this lens.  I've only recently started to appreciate the value of IS in terms of being able to keep your ISO down and hence keep your IQ up in lower light.

So, I guess what I was really asking is - does having an extra stop on the 35, plus the IS, make enough of a difference that the 35 2 IS is a genuine upgrade from the pancake?  Or does the 35 have better IQ than the pancake that it's an upgrade on that ground alone?

Of course, as was pointed out, the pancake is a pretty cheap lens to begin with, so I wouldn't get much for it if I sold it ... and it makes a very useful companion to a 70-200 (I do have one - it's focal length range I love on FF)  so maybe it's worth holding on to anyway.  That said, I see one comment that the 35 2 IS is small enough to fill the "pocket" lens role anyway.

All things for me to ponder.  I think I'll see if I can find a 35 2 IS in a store and take a few shots so I can compare them to what I'm getting out of my 40 (and my 28).

9
Lenses / Canon 35 2 IS v Canon 40 2.8 pancake
« on: January 24, 2014, 08:53:06 AM »
A question for anyone who has the 40mm pancake and the Canon 35 f2 IS: do you see yourself keeping the 40 and 35 in your kit long term or do you see them as largely redundant?  Which of the two do you prefer?  I realise the 35 is a stop faster before you even take into account the IS, while the 40 is much smaller and lighter (although I gather the 35 is still fairly small and light), but I'm keen to hear from anyone who's used them both.

I've currently got a 40mm pancake, a Sigma 50 1.4 and an old Canon 28 1.8 (which I used as a general purpose prime on crop, but which hasn't seen much use since I got a 6D).  I'm planning to sell the 28, and I'm thinking about getting the 35 f2 IS but I wonder if I need (can justify!) having a 35 and a 40 (And a 50!).  I'd be using the lens mostly as a general walk around/street/low light prime when I want to go small and light (so something like the Sigma 35 1.4 isn't so appealing to me despite it's IQ reputation).  Another option is to sell the 40 as well as the 28, and replace them both with the 35.  Or I could just forget the 35 and stick with the 40.  To the extent relevant, I do have a Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM as well.  (I'd actually like to reduce the number of lenses I own, but somehow I seem to find buying easier than selling!)

Thanks for any comments you can offer!

10
EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M in 2014 [CR2]
« on: November 12, 2013, 06:28:45 AM »
If a7 works out as I planned, I might end up with just one 5d iii, 135,  70-200. Slowly switching to FF mirrorless. No need 12fps for every day photos. I do need high iso from ff. Better dr is a huge plus for landscape and pull up shadow shots

Umm, well, if you believe DxO (and I'm not saying you necessarily should, but of course it's the oft quoted reference) the 5DIII and 6D have more DR than the D800 sensor (which seems likely to be a good guide for the a7r sensor doesn't it?) by ISO3200 so ...
 :)

In fact, you can mount an argument that Canon LEADS the race in sensor tech, or at least the race for DR.  You just have to focus on higher ISOs (which isn't necessarily unreasonable depending on what you shoot).  There, that ought to stir up a few people!!   :o


11

I considered both the 1DX and the 5D Mark III, but decided GPS was more important to me than AF performance or megapixels.  I haven't regretted that call, and I've found Wi-Fi to be a lot more useful than I would ever have guessed, too.  Either way, if Canon had introduced those features consistently across their line, I'd probably be using an upgraded 1D or 5D series model instead of the 6D.

(Okay probably not the 1D series, because until just now, I didn't realize they had switched from being a 1.3x crop to a full frame, and I didn't have much interest in a crop body that would still force me to upgrade all my EF-S lenses.  But still....)

So the question you should be asking is not how many 5D users consider GPS or Wi-Fi important (because they made that choice clear with their buying decision), but rather how many 6D users would have considered spending the extra money for the 5D or 1D series if they had not lacked those features.  The answer might surprise you.

I have to say I'm surprised! And intrigued. What sort of photography do you do that means you were willing to pay for the features the 5Diii has over the 6D but nonetheless inbuilt GPS was even more important to you? I'm assuming it involves a lot of travel, but I'm guessing there is something more involved(?).

12
Canon's biggest problem is pretty much the same as Apple's right before Steve came back.  Their R&D is spread across too many products that are poorly and inconsistently differentiated, and there's no single product that is clearly and unambiguously the best.  The supposedly top-of-the-line 1D series clearly wins in terms of most of the pro body features, but loses to the 5Dmk3 in terms of sensor size (limiting its ultra-wide-angle use).  The 5Dmk3, in turn, kills the 6D in autofocus but doesn't compare in low light noise or in end-user features like GPS and Wi-Fi.  And so on.

I have no idea about Canon's R&D budget is spread out, but after watching for the last 10 years or so I've come to the conclusion Canon might, just might, have some idea about making mass-market cameras!  The don't always have the very best of everything (think sensors at the moment!), and they often don't have the best specifications in their class (for example, as far as I can tell, Nikon's comparable cameras nearly always have "better" numbers - more zones in their metering matrix, etc, etc), but the Canon cameras still turn out to be great photographic tools ... especially in the context of Canon's overall system.  Take the 6D.  Many people (including me) were underwhelmed by its specs sheet ... but now the 6D seems to have developed a pretty good reputation and be selling well ... and I'm one of its buyers.  Certainly it has its limitations, but it's a good camera which can satisfy the needs of a lot of people. And it seems to be doing better at that than many of its competitors, whatever their spec sheets may say.

I also think Canon has very clearly differentiated its cameras - certainly its 35mm sensor ones. The 1Dx seems unambiguously the "best" because of its ability to deal with the widest range of conditions and speed requirements.  The 5DIII has a higher resolution sensor, but overall seems a clear step down - by all reports the files aren't as flexible, it's FPS is much slower, by all reports the AF isn't quite as good even though the systems are similar. And of course the 5DIII ergonomics are quite different, particular the smaller body - a positive for some and a negative for others. Anyway, the choice is clear - if you want a smaller/lighter camera than a 1Dx, or more resolution is a critical requirement, the 5DIII is your choice (I'll ignore cost issues for now).  And then there's the 6D. If you can live with a more limited AF system for tracking moving subjects and focusing on off-centre targets, and the x-sync speed - or smaller and lighter is critical to you - it will give great images and at a significantly lower cost. And I think the reality for a lot of people is they can live with those limitations because, as much as they might like to have a camera with fancier specs, in practice their photography doesn't really need it. And Canon threw in a few bells and whistles too, such as wifi and GPS, presumably to help attract some of the upgraders - but I doubt there are too many 5DIII who are coveting a 6D just because of wifi and GPS. (I'm sure there are some 5DIII owners who'd be happy to have the features, I'm just saying I struggle to believe the majority of 5DIII owners would rate wifi and GPS as that important, at least in comparison to the advantages the 5DIII over the 6D.)

Quote
Oh, and dump the mirrorless line.  It was a failed experiment.  Or at best, make it electronically identical to the consumer crop body, just in a different case, with the mirror box headers unpopulated, and with slightly different firmware.


The EOS M does seem to have a been a bit disappointing, even if the firmware upgrade helped a bit.  I find it interesting Canon hasn't really gone after the mirrorless market, but the question is why haven't they?  Is it really as simple as not wanting to cannibalise their DSLR sales, or is there more to it than that?  Perhaps Canon thinks mirrorless won't really deliver the promise/hope of a significantly lighter/smaller system (including lenses) unless the sensor size is reduced (like m4/3) but thinks the IQ possibilities of larger sensors are more important to the market it's going after?  Perhaps Canon doesn't think mirrorless offers enough genuine benefits over a DSLR (at least mid to high range DSLRs) as a photographic tool, that it's worth it at this point? Will that change in future with advances in technology like EVF, batteries (to drive the EVF!), and AF (and the 70D sensor tech hints Canon could be working on that one, at least)?  Perhaps I'm giving Canon too much credit?!  :)  Anyway, I look forward to seeing what the camera landscape looks like in the next year or two - will 35mm mirrorless be taking over, or will be a short term fad which ends up a niche player but fails to push out DSLRs?  I've got to say the attraction of the OVF (for many people, I believe) means I'm not convinced DSLRs are going to die out that quickly, but we'll have to see.

Quote
Just my $0.02.

With my $0.02, we're up to $0.04 now I guess  :)


13
Ah OK, you meant "faster" in that sense.

Going back to what I said in my last post - am I right in saying that if shooting the same scene, the Canon 6D + 70-200 2.8 set up is going to require about the same shutter time to expose the scene as the EM-5 + 35-100 2.8 set up if both cameras are set at the same ISO? 

You are right but you have no reason to shoot at the same ISO. In light limited conditions, you can shoot with a larger sensor at a higher ISO. Noise (photon one) is not created by the ISO.

It is like having a car with 3 speeds vs. a car with 6 speeds. You do not use the same speed, say, 3, under the same conditions just because they are numbered the same.

Quote
I take your point that lenses don't have a shutter time - but I'm comparing the two set ups as a whole.  And I take your point that in absolute terms, the Canon set up lets in more light in a given time - but it also has to expose a larger surface area.  That larger surface area provides benefits such as lower noise, but has other effects too such as giving a different depth of field.  That does bring us back to the position in my earlier post, doesn't it?

More light comes with less DOF (assuming the same QE, etc.). There is no other way. That is why the best way is to think in equivalent terms. 100/2.8 on m43 is like 200/5.6 on FF. Same DOF, same FOV, same noise, same diffraction softening (but different resolution in general). In that sense, 70-200/4 is 1 stop faster that the 35-100/2.8 which is 70-200/5.6 equivalent. BTW, the recent m43 bodies have really good sensors.

Thanks Pi. I'm still struggling but I think I'm starting to get it. If I understand, 100/2.8 on m43 is equivalent to 200/5.6 in terms of the photographic characteristics you mentioned, including in terms of the total light falling on the sensor.  However, because the 35mm sensor has a larger surface area, the intensity of light is less and hence the exposure is less - meaning you need either a longer shutter time or a higher ISO to achieve the same exposure.  And then, if shutter time is a limiting factor, it just comes down to the fact the 35mm sensor can use a higher ISO without noise become (more of) a problem - and as you say, since the sensor has that "gear", use it!

Quote
Do not mention this to an m43 (only) owner. This makes them mad. They would insist that the 35-100/2.8 is 70-200/2.8 equivalent.

Awww, but it would be fun!   :D

Quote
I have to say I've always struggled with comparing systems with different sensor sizes.  If I'm missing something, I'm happy to learn!

Quote
Joe's essay, linked above, is an excellent read. Joe actually posted here a few months ago.

Will give it a read!  Hopefully by the time I've read that I'll finally understand all this properly.

14

I have to say I've always struggled with comparing systems with different sensor sizes.  If I'm missing something, I'm happy to learn!


Read this, it is the bible for comparing systems. 

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/


Thanks PBD. I had a quick look at the link but it looks like I'm going to have to put a bit of time aside to read the whole thing! I'll get there though - it looks interesting.

15
I assume you mean the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS is "faster" than the mFT 35-100 f/2.8 in the sense the Canon 6D set up would allow shallower of depth of field. Which is obviously an argument for using one of the comparisons you suggest.  On the other hand (and I'm sure you know this already), if shutter time is important (eg shooting action), the Canon 70-200 2.8 should give the same shutter time as the mFT 35-100 2.8 at a given ISO, so in that sense they're comparable.

No, I meant "faster" as allowing more light to reach the sensor, resulting in less noise.

Lenses do not have shutter time. "Given ISO" is meaningless when comparing different formats. You want to get the same noise, and same DOF. You shoot at 200/5.6 on FF (with whatever ISO you find appropriate, say 1600), and at 100/2.8, at say, ISO 400. You get the same total light, more or less the same noise away from the deep shadows, but FF will resolve considerably more. So the 70-200/4 actually lets 1 stop more light to reach the sensor than the 35-100/2.8.

Or just take a look at those two lenses. The 70-200 has a larger front element (for a telephoto lens, this more or less determines the physical aperture).

Ah OK, you meant "faster" in that sense.

Going back to what I said in my last post - am I right in saying that if shooting the same scene, the Canon 6D + 70-200 2.8 set up is going to require about the same shutter time to expose the scene as the EM-5 + 35-100 2.8 set up if both cameras are set at the same ISO?  (I know I'm generalising a bit - not worrying about things like differences in T stops, and the way different manufacturers cite ISO.)  I take your point that lenses don't have a shutter time - but I'm comparing the two set ups as a whole.  And I take your point that in absolute terms, the Canon set up lets in more light in a given time - but it also has to expose a larger surface area.  That larger surface area provides benefits such as lower noise, but has other effects too such as giving a different depth of field.  That does bring us back to the position in my earlier post, doesn't it?

I have to say I've always struggled with comparing systems with different sensor sizes.  If I'm missing something, I'm happy to learn!

Pages: [1] 2 3