Discussion in 'photography, graphics & art' started by alsoknownas, Oct 5, 2018.
There isn't one that's directly comparable.
It's not really in doubt that equivalent m43 lenses can basically always be smaller than FF, though, is it? I mean that's just kind of physics. Particularly for the fast pro lenses where the FF has to cover the whole frame properly wide open - the cheaper slower ones often end up poor in the corners on FF at max aperture, whereas you can generally shoot any reasonable m43 lens wide open all the time and not notice.
(My Panaleica 25/1.4 is slightly longer than my Minolta AF 50/1.4 - which is, to be fair, an unusually compact lens. I can't think of any other comparison where m43 equivalents are larger.)
I also happened to mention that too!
No it's not in doubt - nor a point anyone on this thread has made, I don't think.
Blimey - it was just a bit of a side discussion about an MFT lens I liked and then comparing its size/weight to ‘similar’ in FF.
That Nikon 85mm f1.8 G (I assume) is massive.
I have a Nikon 85mm f1.8 AFD and it is tiny by comparison.
Panasonic are making a point of emphasising that they will (apparently) never abandon MFT.
Good News for Micro Four Thirds | Natural Exposures, Inc.
It's well old though and I imagine slower than the newer one.
Rings true; they can’t just abandon a large proportion of their customer base in favour of doing only FF pro gear.
Just thought that this thread does not seem to refer to medium format, while there is a Fuji 50mpx MF camera available for about the price of a D850.
It brings a lot of pixels to the description of an image.
It's one hell of a bulky beast though with monster lenses and an eye watering price of £5,000 - around double that of a Nikon 850!
And the lenses too.
I saw somebody using one at work to do headshots which were undoubtedly just going on Instagram and I was like "whyyyyyy".
Big kit is tiring.
I’ve got an array of FF kit. Nothing slower than f2.8. Range from 16mm to 200mm, stabilised.
For particular stuff... low light, fast action, it’s the only way I can get the shot I/client wants.
But oh my it’s so heavy. On my last city trip, I couldn’t bring myself to take it out most of the time. In good light, phone photos were amazing.
I’d say phones are the real revolution in low-hassle photography.
I'm not sure where I'm at with the heavy / light thing. There's two things opposing for me - on the one hand I'm a big fan of lightweight gear in general. I travel mostly via public transport, so I'm loving the new breed of lightweight lights, stands, tripods, etc. But on the other hand, when it comes to video, having a bit of weight to the camera really helps to eliminate micro judder and make smoother camera movements in general.
So, while I've gone as lightweight as possible in every other area, I seem to mostly use adapted FF and APS-C lenses.
Dual IS is spooky though. I don't shoot much video but when I use the Pana 14-140 with the GX8, so both SuperMegaFantastic OIS and IBIS, I'm slightly disturbed by how steady the result is. Every slight judder seems to be removed.
Yeah I know. I'm just starting to incorporate IBIS into my workflow, and it can be delightful to be honest.
I think it's more like another option rather than a straight replacement for any of the traditional grip methods.
I've heard that the I.S. Video Lock mode on the GH5 is next level.
Funny enough, I think IBIS is more difficult to implement well on larger sensors.
As I mentioned in another thread I have a use for silent operation now, my D800 is quite loud, for most things it does not matter but there are times when silent would be good.
ps editor I didn't know the Fuji MF was so expensive.
I was bitching about EVFs earlier on this thread but I'd like to say one thing for them - the zebra stripes that pop up in my GX8's finder for areas that will be blown out make it much easier to avoid blowing highlights, compared to the A900 that I was shooting today, which is much nicer to _look through_ in the sun but has produced some really overexposed stuff at times.
On the other hand if cameras actually had proper meters that would be good too. I don't know if it's just me but I keep finding that even pretty advanced cameras which technically have really good dynamic range seem to blow highlights way more than I'd like, and sometimes shadows, or both. This has basically been every camera I've ever used. (I admit that I'm really sensitive to blown highlights though.)
I find there to be a fair amount of meters available nowadays to be fair. On my GH4 I always have the histogram on display. Also have zebras set to 100. Also use metering set to Multiple Zone (or spot metering for things like gigs). Basically hard to blow highlights like that unless intentional (or I've made a big mistake - does happen ).
I recently got a SmallHD Focus monitor, which is an excellent tool - lightweight, reasonably priced, extremely bright. I use that about 80% of the time, and it adds quickly scroll-able full Waveform, and False Colour.
That's a lot of exposure tools! 5 ways to very quickly check exposure, and I do find myself using them all during a shoot. Might be a bit overkill, I don't know, but I really do find them all useful in slightly different ways.
False Colour is something I've always shied away from cos I'm a bit colour-blind! But on the Focus you can customise all the colours, so I've set it to shades I'm more friendly with, and now I get along with it really well .
GX8 has a histogram I think. That can help control highlight clipping.
I look at the zebra as being an interface to the part of histogram that I care about tbh.
But really, I mean come on. I use automatic exposure so that I don't have to think about it in conditions of rapidly changing light. If I have to check the bloody histogram (or even the zebra) all the time and make adjustments, I might as well be using a manually metered camera. In fact, because film is a lot more forgiving, I find I get better exposures _with_ a manually metered camera.
All I want is to be able to point the camera at stuff and press the shutter and get something out the end which, while it may not be perfect, is reasonably recoverable with some simple exposure adjustments. I get that a lot but by no means all the time, particularly in mixed light.
Yes, that makes sense. Shooting video is by necessity a manual exposure environment (else you'd get unpleasant fluctuations during a shot), but on the rare occasions I do stills I tend to use Aperture Priority. Still, I think there is a much needed skill in knowing when the meter is likely to be confused, and just nudging things up or down a bit as required. I guess that's what Exposure Compensation is handy for (though I'm not in the habit of using it - I use a bit of a long-winded work around).
Thinking about it, auto exposure is never really going to be a reliable method. I mean, they could probably develop some AI to improve it (a lot of cameras already have facial recognition onboard, so maybe that could be a starting point for working out what exposure levels should be?). Ultimately I think getting the camera to guess what the exposure should be is going to end in fail around 20% of the time I would have thought.
This is the kind of sentiment that is going around quite a lot at the mo (this from eoshd), and prompted the thread. I don't really agree, but the whole debate has certainly set me thinking (especially as I'm getting ready to buy a GH5S) :
That quote could also be captioned "why you should never go on photography forums" - though there is of course way worse unhelpful tech advocacy out there.
Fuji are saying they will never go full frame btw - https://petapixel.com/2018/10/23/fujifilm-we-will-never-go-full-frame/
I can't say I'm convinced by that argument.
IMO Fuji are avoiding direct competition with Nikon & Canon, and continuing in their pursuit of their specific niches, certainly a strategy that they could take.
I really don’t think the world needs _another_ frickin FF mirrorless camera.
I know. I should really be tipped off by the way it starts 'Back in the day...'. The GH5 has only been out around a year and a half .
No - I mean apart from the awful Extremely Online tone, peppered with insults and obvious fanboyism, what argument there is rests on the unexamined idea that larger sensors are better full stop. I don’t think that larger sensors are automatically better; they’re better for some things obviously but also have disadvantages and a lot of people simply don’t give a shit. It wouldn’t improve my photography one bit if I was using FF (or MF) rather than m43 because it’s not important for the sort of pics I take. If anything it’s an advantage for street photography and photojournalism to have good DoF at large apertures, for instance - I can shoot wide open at f1.4 at night and don’t have to worry that just someone’s eyelash is in focus.
I just don’t reply to that sort of comment any more when I see it. I don’t understand why people would post stuff like that and tbh I’ve stopped caring - it’s not like there’s any value in this aggressive shit that means I should try to puzzle it out.
Separate names with a comma.