Hum. One thing that worries me about the 16+ 4/3 sensor is the demand it places on the lens. I guess the same can be said for the 24+ Sony sensor. At some point I would think the benefits of increased pixel density would become negative (i.e, lens can't full advantage of increase in pixel and the loss of dynamic range/increase noise is not worth the increase in density); though I guess someone thinks there is still room for increased density.
you2 wrote:
Hum. One thing that worries me about the 16+ 4/3 sensor is the demand it places on the lens. I guess the same can be said for the 24+ Sony sensor. At some point I would think the benefits of increased pixel density would become negative (i.e, lens can't full advantage of increase in pixel and the loss of dynamic range/increase noise is not worth the increase in density); though I guess someone thinks there is still room for increased density.
I have only used a few m43 lenses but I did not notice any issue with regard to their ability to resolve detail when used on the 16MP GH2 sensor. I was happily surprised. What I did see though was a noticeable decrease in dynamic range compared to APS and FF sensors and I suspect this is simply a limitation of the smaller m43 sensor.
Yeah, the better native lenses are really high resolving. The Oly 12/2 and Oly 45/1.8, as well as the PanaLeica 25 and 45 and the 7-14, 8mm fisheye and even the Oly 40-150 all resolve tremendous amounts of detail (in some cases superior to the best glass I had on Canon full frame). As far as detail goes, as a whole, my m4/3 kit provides higher overall resolution compared to my former Canon full frame kit (which included the 17-40L, 50/1.4, 100L macro and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II).
Legacy glass does suffer somewhat at these pixel densities. For instance, while I found the Rokinon 85/1.4 to be quite sharp even wide open on my 1Ds II; it is quite soft (though still usable) at f/1.4 on micro 4/3. At f/2 it sharpens up enough to be quite nice, though. Legacy 50s are pretty much demolished at wider apertures compared to native m4/3 glass, and can't quite keep up even stopped down with the likes of the Oly 45/1.8.
The smaller image circle of native lenses helps with a higher resolving power.
Jman13 wrote:
Legacy 50s are pretty much demolished at wider apertures compared to native m4/3 glass, and can't quite keep up even stopped down with the likes of the Oly 45/1.8.
I'd have to see that to believe it. I'd need to see the lens in question on something like the D700 and then on a 12mp µ4/3 and then the 16 µ4/3 you say it's demolished on. Until then I'm calling BS. No personal offense intended... just calling BS on this one!
Bifurcator wrote:
I'd have to see that to believe it. I'd need to see the lens in question on something like the D700 and then on a 12mp µ4/3 and then the 16 µ4/3 you say it's demolished on. Until then I'm calling BS. No personal offense intended... just calling BS on this one!
I am not saying Micro 4/3 with m4/3 glass outresolves all the best legacy 50s on a full frame body, I'm saying at the very tight pixel density of m4/3, a legacy 50 has a hard time keeping up with dedicated m4/3 glass.
I'd need some of the better Zeiss and Leica glass to test the very best of the best, but I did a comparison with 12 lenses (three native m4/3, 9 legacy lenses...some quite good, others not so good).
When comparing the 4/3 version of the Summilux 25/1.4 to the old standard Canon EF 50/1.4 I would say they are about the same at the equivalent aperture openings. Stopping down further, say to f/5.6 or 8, the EF 50/1.4 is sharp or even critically sharp all over the frame, something the 4/3 Summilux 25/1.4 can't do.
I now have the micro version of the 25/1.4 and without having done any controlled test of it I think it is about equal to the 4/3 version.
Comparing any of the 25/1.4 wide open to a FF with a 50/1.4 wide open is no contest really; the 25/1.4 wins wide open as it has much less aberrations and is sharp over a, relatively, larger area than the 50/1.4. Comparing this way the 25/1.4 also wins against the excellent Sigma 50/1.4 and probably also when matched against the new Nikkor 50/1.4G. I haven't tried the Nikkor myself and can't say for sure.
In any case, the comparisons described above are pretty much meaningless. I'm just happily settled with the fact I very often can stay at base ISO and get sharp images with a decent DOF using my old G1 with the Panasonic 25/1.4.
Jonas B wrote:
When comparing the 4/3 version of the Summilux 25/1.4 to the old standard Canon EF 50/1.4 I would say they are about the same at the equivalent aperture openings.
...
I now have the micro version of the 25/1.4 and without having done any controlled test of it I think it is about equal to the 4/3 version.
...
Comparing the lenses at the same f-stop is no contest really; the 25/1.4 wins wide open as it has much less aberrations and is sharp over a, relatively, larger area than the 50/1.4.
thrice, I'm sorry, I meant to say comparing any of the 25/1.4 wide open to the typical 50/1.4 wide open on a FF camera is no contest. I have now edited my post above a little...
I got the HLD-6 grip yesterday at my local store (Milford, CT), and their Olympus rep said he expected cameras to start arriving next week (fingers crossed). The grip is really nice - plastic, but high quality, with suede padding on the contact surfaces and even small, molded-in storage recesses for the rubber covers for the contact ports on the camera and first section of the grip.
