carstenw wrote:
If you can\'t understand it, I guess you haven\'t really tried. I am far less concerned with the DoF than with the light gathering ability, as simple as that. The 180/2 will only have a two-stop advantage over the 150/4, which only you mentioned, so you set up your own straw man and knocked him down yourself. Good job
I\'m not sure I follow you but the combination of an imaginary 150/2 and a full frame body would have about two stops of advantage. Use it for light or shallow DoF. I didn\'t say a 150/4 would have that advantage, but rather be the equivalent of a 75/2 on a 4/3 body. Hence, I cannot understand why some people writes that you should have a look at the Leica 180/2 to see how a similar lens would look like on a FF body. Am I being clear here?
I\'m pretty sure people here understands this and it\'s more a matter of semantics but it still annoying to read that it is equivalent to a 150/2 when it has none of the characteristics you\'d expect from such a lens. Or put it like this - why translate FoV into 35 mm terms but not DoF?
It has really nothing to do about what you prefer, or how you shoot. As long as you don\'t care about the ISO number recorded in the EXIF, there are no advantages on a f2 lens on a 4/3 body over a f/4 lens on a ff body. Personally I\'m more interested in the resulting image than if the ISO said 1, 16, 160 or 16 000 if you cannot tell them apart.
That being said I really like the OM-D. My mom is looking for her own camera and I\'m thinking about one of these for her. It would be nice though if the lens could produce some shallow DoF for portraits, and I\'m not sure if a f/5.6 kit zoom would do that on 4/3. Is it complete craziness to buy her a prime, like the 25/1.4?
Feb 13, 2012 at 04:46 PM
Previous versions of JonasY's message #10342420 « New Olympus OM-D announced »
