molson wrote:
The XF 8-16mm f2.8 is the only X series ultra-wide comparable to the GF 20-35mm in sharpness, though; the XF 10-24mm is not exactly a stellar lens.
The XF 8-16 is much better glass than the 10-24, I've had both. You also can't compare APS-C f/4 to 44x33 medium format f/4. The light gathering capabilities of the GF 20-35/4 is about the same as an f/2 XF lens so the XF 8-16/2.8 makes more sense for comparison being f/2.8.
Since I had both the 8-16 and the 10-24 I can tell you I would always pick the 8-16 if I had to choose, even for long hikes. The 10-24 is a fine lens but not the right one to compare to medium format glass.
hauxon wrote:
The light gathering capabilities of the GF 20-35/4 is about the same as an f/2 XF lens so the XF 8-16/2.8 makes more sense for comparison being f/2.8.
Assuming the same ISO and same shutter speed, if you shot with the GF lens at f4, and then shot with the XF lens at f2.8, from which camera would the image appear brighter?
mdude85 wrote:
Assuming the same ISO and same shutter speed, if you shot with the GF lens at f4, and then shot with the XF lens at f2.8, from which camera would the image appear brighter?
An f/4 GFX lens projects the same image to a four times larger area, loosing only half of the image brightness compared to an f/2.8 X lens. So the GFX lens actually collects double the light even though it's on stop less bright.
I would much rather have the 8-16 at f/2.8 than a mobile phone at f/1.7. The same goes for medium format vs APS-C. An f/4 medium format lens will be preferable to an f/2.8 APS-C lens since it will gather more light and give you better image quality.
hauxon wrote:
An f/4 GFX lens projects the same image to a four times larger area, loosing only half of the image brightness compared to an f/2.8 X lens. So the GFX lens actually collects double the light even though it's on stop less bright.
How do you prefer to calculate how much light a lens “collects”?
hauxon wrote:
An f/4 GFX lens projects the same image to a four times larger area, loosing only half of the image brightness compared to an f/2.8 X lens. So the GFX lens actually collects double the light even though it's on stop less bright.
I would much rather have the 8-16 at f/2.8 than a mobile phone at f/1.7. The same goes for medium format vs APS-C. An f/4 medium format lens will be preferable to an f/2.8 APS-C lens since it will gather more light and give you better image quality.
A perfect example of why you should not believe everything you read on the internet. A 2.8 lens is a 2.8 lens is a 2.8 lens.
Not this stupid ignorance about equivalence again. And the same people refusing to understand basic math in every thread.
For a specific scene brightness: Shutter duration * aperture * sensor area = collected light
This cannot be discussed. ISO isn't even involved and has nothing with collected light to do. Nor does image brightness.
If you turn down brightness in PP, did the camera suddenly collect less light at the time when the photo was taken? Of course not, because image brightness can be set to whatever you (or the camera) want, regardless of ISO, exposure or any other parameter.
Back to the topic at hand, I've yet to see many GFX images that are noticeably better than an "equivalent" full frame setup, whether it's landscape, street, or whatever. They are cameras that excel in very specific, controlled environments and conditions like the studio or extremely measured landscape photography and not much else.
I find myself looking through the GFX image thread wondering why people are dragging such cumbersome setups around for what is ostensibly full frame level output.
Makten wrote:
Photons. Read the article. And the comments, because there is a lot of people with the same lack of understanding as yours.
Hm. How do you get "photons" by multiplying the shutter duration (milliseconds?) by the aperture (f-stop? pupil diameter?) by the sensor area (mm^2 perhaps)?
mdude85 wrote:
Hm. How do you get "photons" by multiplying the shutter duration (milliseconds?) by the aperture (f-stop? pupil diameter?) by the sensor area (mm^2 perhaps)?
Makten wrote:
Hm. How do you get "photons" by multiplying the shutter duration (milliseconds?) by the aperture (f-stop? pupil diameter?) by the sensor area (mm^2 perhaps)?
That was actually a serious question.
Maybe I'll ask it another way. Here are the values to plug into your formula.
Using your formula, can you tell me how many photons are "collected" by the lens?
No, because I don't know how much light hits the lens. We are comparing sensor formats here, but since you have decided that you don't want to learn how equivalence works, I won't bother you. All the necessary explanations have been provided but you have chosen to ignore them, every time. Good luck with the further cultivating of your ignorance.
Edit: By the way, the lens doesn't collect photons. The sensor does.
Makten wrote:
No, because I don't know how much light hits the lens. We are comparing sensor formats here, but since you have decided that you don't want to learn how equivalence works, I won't bother you. All the necessary explanations have been provided but you have chosen to ignore them, every time. Good luck with the further cultivating of your ignorance.
Edit: By the way, the lens doesn't collect photons. The sensor does.
I think one of the posters above was confused about equivalence, but I'm not (happily).
It sounded to me like that poster was conflating how much light is refracted by the lens with how much light hits the sensor, and illustrated their confusion by saying that the GFX lens "actually collects double the light".
RoamingScott wrote:
Back to the topic at hand, I've yet to see many GFX images that are noticeably better than an "equivalent" full frame setup, whether it's landscape, street, or whatever.
Well I have eyes with which to see, and fingers with which to open the GFX thread. The content is middling to be kind.
That said, I doubt I'd maximize the GFX system with my style of shooting, which is why I've been prudent enough up to now to avoid the gear lust that comes with that beefy sensor.
RoamingScott wrote:
Well I have eyes with which to see, and fingers with which to open the GFX thread. The content is middling to be kind.
That said, I doubt I'd maximize the GFX system with my style of shooting, which is why I've been prudent enough up to now to avoid the gear lust that comes with that beefy sensor.
Most people cannot maximize the GFX system with their style of shooting; indeed most people cannot even maximize a FF system with their style of shooting. To get the maximum benefit from the GFX system you probably do need to put a lot of work into the shot, the post-processing and the printing -- which some people, in fact, know how to do. The content that you see might be middling because of who is posting it (and where it's being posted).
It's crazy that the GFX is the same size and weight as my old Canon 6D kit. The technology has really come a long way in the last 10 years.
RoamingScott wrote:
Well I have eyes with which to see, and fingers with which to open the GFX thread. The content is middling to be kind.
That said, I doubt I'd maximize the GFX system with my style of shooting, which is why I've been prudent enough up to now to avoid the gear lust that comes with that beefy sensor.
It's not about the sensor - although it is very good - it's the lenses. There's nothing in the "full frame" world that resolves fine image detail with the fidelity and sharpness that the GF lenses are capable of. Some of the Leica SL and Panasonic S Pro lenses come close, but everything else is a major letdown after using the GFX system (and I've tried pretty well all of them by now... I wish I had your restraint.)
On the other hand, if the ultimate purpose of your photos is to share them on social media, I agree it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff, because the viewing platforms reduce everything to the lowest common denominator,. In that case, you might as well shoot with a 1" sensor or m4/3 camera because you're more likely to carry them around with you, and you won't gain any noticeable improvement in image quality from lugging around a huge full-frame (or GFX) camera and lenses. Horses for courses, as the British say...
