Makten wrote:
What people fail to understand is that exposure is totally irrelevant if you don't take account for sensor size. If the sensor is four times larger, you only need a fourth of the exposure to get the same information. ISO 100 on MFT is equivalent to ISO 400 on FF.
How many times must this be repeated?
-----------------
Anyhow, it's an interesting lens since it makes up a bit for the small sensor. And the combo with camera is still lighter than a 5D with a 35/2.
JonasY wrote:
Apparently each time a "fast" lens for 4/3 is released
Anyhow, I agree with your last sentence. This lens can definitely make some sense.
Really? 100 on 4/3 is equiv to 400 on say, the D700 in terms of exposure value? Well then if the noise of the 4/3 sensor at ISO 100 is still about the same as the D700 at ISO 100 then µ4/3 totally rocks and FF cameras suck ass!
But all seriousness aside, the ONLY thing holding me back from getting these two Voigtlander lenses are their prices. If they were $500 a piece I'd have them already. The trouble (in my view) is that Evil Panasonic and tag-a-long Olympus have been selling their plastic junkers in about that range so I guess Voigtlander knowing full well their lenses were at least twice as good optioned for the relative price point.
Shame, that. I haven't seen almost anyone claiming to own these - and I guess for the same reason as me.
Bifurcator wrote:
Really? 100 on 4/3 is equiv to 400 on say, the D700 in terms of exposure value?
No, in terms of noise. ISO 200 on my OM-D is about as "bad" as ISO 800 was on the D700, which matches the theory just fine. This is a bit surprising since the MFT sensor is much more modern and should be better than that.
The difference is much lesser at higher ISO:s though, so something has happened.
Dear lord, stop with the damn equivalence talk. The OMD is not supposed to match a full frame sensor. Why must we talk about this every time. We know.
It also magically only comes up with m4/3 and somehow never with APS C except maybe in passing.
I'm not going to buy two systems to enable shallow DOF instead of just getting a faster lens for my camera, so all this equivalence crap is irrelevant. Why don't we constantly compare our FF light gathering ability against medium format or even 8x10? I mean, it's not as good, right, so let's mention every time that f/1.4 on FF isn't really f/1.4 when you compare it to large format?
Not to mention that the argument is completely useless at base ISO. You're going to be shooting at base in good light pretty much regardless of aperture, so what's the point in bringing it up on certain lenses? It's a limitation of the system at base ISO that people are aware of. We get it...there's a little more noise on a smaller sensor from the same generation as a larger one. Thanks for the insight.
Where it matters is high ISO, where you're using the faster aperture not for shallow DOF, but for extra light gathering ability. Here, m4/3 and FF are essentially a wash unless you WANT the shallower depth of field, which often isn't the case. I can shoot at 17mm and f/0.95 at ISO 3200 while you might need 35mm, f/2 and ISO 12,800 to get the same depth of field. Guess what? The OM-D at 3200 SMOKES the D700 and 5D II at 12,800, and is even better than the 5D III at ISO 12,800.
Oh, and play around with the tool there and you'll see that even when all are at ISO 800...there's really very little difference between all four cameras. the OM-D sensor is not two full stops behind recent full frame sensors. Period. In fact, looking at that, it doesn't even look like it's one stop (ISO 800 on the OMD looks slightly cleaner than ISO 1600 on the other cameras).
So, where's all the big talk about how m4/3 is superior at high ISO for equivalent DOF? Oh, we conveniently forget this 'equivalence' then. Why? Because it doesn't matter if you are owning a certain camera system.
Micro 4/3 is not intended to be equal to full frame in every way shape and form. It's intended to be a very high quality system that is small. While this lens is pretty heavy, it's still pretty small for a very fast lens. Look at it in the system, like you do for EVERY OTHER CAMERA.
Thanks for posting your initial thoughts on this lens. Some of us are interested in your opinions and pictures rather than arguing about photon collection...
Can't say that I will be running out to buy this one though. I did not like the Voightlander 25mm due to the unique way it rendered things, particularly at f 0.95. I do not know the right term for it, but highlights seemed to glow and produce this odd flare like property. I ended up preferring the Panasonic 25mm instead. Not sure if this lens would end up the same.
Jman13 wrote:
...Micro 4/3 is not intended to be equal to full frame in every way shape and form. It's intended to be a very high quality system that is small. While this lens is pretty heavy, it's still pretty small for a very fast lens. Look at it in the system, like you do for EVERY OTHER CAMERA.
Agreed. Micro 4/3 sensors have improved dramatically and the lenses are stellar. If you can't isolate your subject with a m 4/3 sensor then you need more practice at photography . This was taken with an "old school" GF-1 and a cheapo Yashica 50 1.7.... http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/Other/Acadia/i-bdDzfSX/0/XL/P1080303-16-XL.jpg
The main reason that I'm shooting with a NEX instead of m4/3 at this point is:
1. I prefer shooting with MF lenses and the peaking makes all the difference in the world to me.
2. For legacy lenses I prefer the 1.5X crop vs the 2X crop.
However, in terms of final output m4/3 is capable of incredible images. And these new m4/3 lenses are making the system increasingly attractive.
Have you used the 25 f/.95 before? If so, are they similar from an optical standpoint? I think I might want to get one or the other at some point down the road for the light gathering ability, either focal length would work fine for me. If one is optically superior to the other at or near wide open it would make my decision easier.
Thank you, Jordon, for this review. The lens is not one that I am likely to buy - not something I would use enough to justify the price, I suspect. But it increases the range of M43 possibilities and so in a way may help validate the format.
PS: Gee, I don't have a "Photon Collection" - is there a club for that to help me get started
I will be shooting a lot with the lens over the next few days. Full in depth review next week. I thi I I'm going to try and do some night shooting handheld tonight or Monday.
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.
thanks, thats clear that it does not completly cover it. but however, you can use a square of the 4/3, means its even better than 4/3. (in my opinion)
- L.
If you crop to close to 4/3 size, how does that make it better than 4/3? Especially since the OMD is pretty darn close to the NEX 5N and 7 at the pixel level.
Jman13 wrote:
If you crop to close to 4/3 size, how does that make it better than 4/3? Especially since the OMD is pretty darn close to the NEX 5N and 7 at the pixel level.
4/3 means 4:3
square means 4:4
i mostly prefer square pictures, accordingly the difference between 3:3 and 4:4 would be 30% on every side (or 25%, depends how you compute) thats what i meant ..
thats what i meant ..