stratokaster
Top Veteran
- Location
- Dublin, Ireland
- Name
- Pavel
That 10mm Samyang is going to be twice the weight of the X-M1 itself. It's designed primarily for APS-C DSLRs.
-
Cameraderie, a friendly photography forum, join now for free!
Fuji Okay, I joined Club Fuji...
- Thread starter entropic remnants
- Start date
That 10mm Samyang is going to be twice the weight of the X-M1 itself. It's designed primarily for APS-C DSLRs.
entropic remnants
Hall of Famer
- Name
- John Griggs
Even so, the combo will be light to carry overall and still light enough for my travel tripod I use now. It will be the widest non-fisheye for X-Trans and would let me use that sensor without a huge investment. It's still attractive.
Let's face it: APS-C interchangeable lens compacts will STILL suffer from the problems that APS-C DSLR's do in terms of system lens size and weight. But I'll want it for X-Trans detail resolution for my big prints, not as a "carry everywhere". I have my X100 for that.
stratokaster
Top Veteran
- Location
- Dublin, Ireland
- Name
- Pavel
No they won't. At least not necessarily so. For example, Samsung NX 12-24 is just 205g and their pancake lenses are as small and light as their Micro 4/3 counterparts while being better optically. Their autofocus fish-eye is smaller and lighter than Samyang's manual fish-eye for Micro 4/3. Canon 11-22 for EOS M is also remarkably small/light. I think other lens manufacturers (including Sony) are just being lazy with their designs, that's all.
entropic remnants
Hall of Famer
- Name
- John Griggs
Sure they will -- compared to micro four thirds which is what I am comparing them to. That's my "baseline" system.
Well...I like this so much I'm seriously thinking about switching my RX1 for a Xpro1 and a "long-ish" lens....say an 85mm.
stratokaster
Top Veteran
- Location
- Dublin, Ireland
- Name
- Pavel
To quote you precisely, you said they will suffer from the same problems as APS-C DSLRs which is simply not true, no matter how you slice it
For normal and wide-angle lenses APS-C mirrorless cameras have a very slight, almost non-existent disadvantage compared to Micro 4/3. And if we consider the fact that Micro 4/3 needs ~1 stop faster lenses to gather the same amount of light, I'm not sure even that advantage exists anymore. For telephoto lenses the advantage of Micro 4/3 is very clear.
Lawrence A.
Hall of Famer
- Location
- New Mexico
- Name
- Larry
Congratulations. I had an X100 and sold it, and regret doing so. It's a wonderful camera producing sharp and tonally satisfying files. I never found it annoying, as some people do. The auto focus was just fine for the uses I made of it, granted, mostly outside. And I loved the hybrid finder.
If I ever sell my E-M5 it will be to acquire an camera with a Fuji hybrid finder, probably an XPro as I'm hoping my next fixed lens camera will a DP 2 Merril.
If I ever sell my E-M5 it will be to acquire an camera with a Fuji hybrid finder, probably an XPro as I'm hoping my next fixed lens camera will a DP 2 Merril.
entropic remnants
Hall of Famer
- Name
- John Griggs
To quote you precisely, you said they will suffer from the same problems as APS-C DSLRs which is simply not true, no matter how you slice it
For telephoto lenses the advantage of Micro 4/3 is very clear.
I'll accept everything well enough EXCEPT that idea that they need one stop more to gather the same amount of light -- that's wrong and I suspect you probably mispoke in haste. They need one stop more to get the same BOKEH as APS-C, but they are just as sensitive for a given f-number.
I did myself say that wrong about the lens size so let me rephrase and see how you feel about this: for a given lens design, with the same aperture, an APS-C lens will be larger than a micro four thirds lens. That is a fact and I'm standing on it, lol!
entropic remnants
Hall of Famer
- Name
- John Griggs
The X100 has done more just with it's design to move me towards the Fuji camp (though I've not yet crossed the border, lol) than X-Trans or any other technological innovations. I love the hybrid sensor, but I would not mind te X-Trans for my large print urbex stuff. Still, it's not yet enough of an advantage and it's just too much more to invest when I can do what I need to with the micro four thirds gear and the lenses I have are so good.
stratokaster
Top Veteran
- Location
- Dublin, Ireland
- Name
- Pavel
Well, it's just physics. The lens aperture is dimensionless and it shows the amount of light per unit area. 4/3 sensors are 1.64 times smaller than APS-C sensors and it means that they gather 1.64 times less light (as in actual number of photons reaching the surface of the sensor) at the same aperture than APS-C sensors. It also means that Micro 4/3 cameras require approximately 2/3 of a stop faster aperture to gather the same amount of light.
entropic remnants
Hall of Famer
- Name
- John Griggs
Nice try, Pavel, but you forgot ONE thing: since the image circle is smaller, the light from the scene is concentrated in a smaller area. You're still incorrect and they are equivalent. You made a mistake, admit it and move on as you're just digging deeper, lol.
stratokaster
Top Veteran
- Location
- Dublin, Ireland
- Name
- Pavel
Oh John, you're such a jokester. First of all, as I've said, the illuminance is measured per unit area — you can verify it in any source, including Wikipedia. Second, the refractive properties of a lens are already accounted for in its speed rating. You also forgot to account for the fact that the amount of light entering the lens itself is proportional to the area of its entrance pupil. If you take two lenses with the same field of view and F-number, the APS-C lens will always have bigger entrance pupil than the Micro 4/3 lens. And if more light enters the lens, more light will reach the sensor (if the lenses in question are equally efficient in light transmission).
Sorry, my explanation may not be very coherent because my primary language is Russian and I simply lack English vocabulary needed to express those ideas properly. But believe me, I know this stuff. I'm a physicist by education and although I specialized in solid state electronics, optics were a compulsory part of the curriculum.
The m43 lens doesn't need to be any faster at all to have the same exposure (image brightness), assuming ISO and shutter speed are equal. What is different is the "quality" of the exposure; at any given combination of f-number, shutter speed and ISO, an APS-C sensor will have more total light falling on it than a m43 sensor. That's because, like Pavel said, the "density" of light is equal at equal f-numbers, but if you multiply that density by the sensor's surface area, the APS-C's larger area means a larger total amount of light.
This does not mean the APS-C's image gets brighter, because the sensor (or more accurately, the software behind it) is calibrated to expect a larger overall amount of light. But the larger amount of total light falling on the APS-C sensor does mean it'll have less noise, smoother colour gradations and more potential dynamic range. I guess what Pavel was getting at is that, in order to have the same "quality" of the exposure, m43 will need to use lower ISO's, which can be obtained by using a wider aperture (or a slower shutter speed).
One thing Pavel's got sort of wrong is that the refractive properties of the lens are accounted for in its speed rating. That's true if you're talking about T-stops (as is commonly done in filming), but not if you're talking F-stops, as is more common in photography; the F-stop concerns itself only with the entrance pupil diameter in relation to the lens' focal length.
This does not mean the APS-C's image gets brighter, because the sensor (or more accurately, the software behind it) is calibrated to expect a larger overall amount of light. But the larger amount of total light falling on the APS-C sensor does mean it'll have less noise, smoother colour gradations and more potential dynamic range. I guess what Pavel was getting at is that, in order to have the same "quality" of the exposure, m43 will need to use lower ISO's, which can be obtained by using a wider aperture (or a slower shutter speed).
One thing Pavel's got sort of wrong is that the refractive properties of the lens are accounted for in its speed rating. That's true if you're talking about T-stops (as is commonly done in filming), but not if you're talking F-stops, as is more common in photography; the F-stop concerns itself only with the entrance pupil diameter in relation to the lens' focal length.
entropic remnants
Hall of Famer
- Name
- John Griggs
Well, Pavel, you may continue on, but you are still finding a way to justify your " Micro 4/3 needs ~1 stop faster lenses to gather the same amount of light..." statement with simply incredible gyrations. You were wrong (apparently you didn't misspeak).
You're certainly a fine photographer and a polite person to argue with and I appreciate that but here's my final word to you so this doesn't go on and on (although you may choose to, lol).
- You were disputing my statement that APS-C lenses need to be larger than micro four thirds
- You used a mistaken argument similar to what full frame people use to falsely distinguish their arguments that somehow you need "more stops" to get to the same apparent brightness.
- You have muddled up so many things with that, that your original premise has been forgotten -- well done, but you were still wrong!
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI USA
- Name
- Luke
It seems everyone here that is discussing these notions is quite well educated on the subject. Perhaps one or more is slightly misunderstanding another or perhaps one (or more) is slightly mistaken in their understanding. Continuing to go back and forth will likely not change the others' mind(s). :fantastisch_01:
I'm speaking as a moderator here. As long as the discussion/argument sticks with the facts as you understand them, I'll let it continue. And it seems like all parties are being friendly. I just naturally avoid arguments so I'm a bit sensitive to them. You all may continue if you want, but I would imagine it just gets one a little uptight.
Btw, references to diagrams or other explanations from acknowledged factual sources may help close the argument as well, if that is anyone's intent.
I'm speaking as a moderator here. As long as the discussion/argument sticks with the facts as you understand them, I'll let it continue. And it seems like all parties are being friendly. I just naturally avoid arguments so I'm a bit sensitive to them. You all may continue if you want, but I would imagine it just gets one a little uptight.
Btw, references to diagrams or other explanations from acknowledged factual sources may help close the argument as well, if that is anyone's intent.
entropic remnants
Hall of Famer
- Name
- John Griggs
I for one, am done. My photos with micro four thirds and APS-C are my own argument for either system and truly I find these technical arguments useless. And since my general premise that APS-C lenses need to larger than u43 lenses for the same performance should be a given, the rest is sound and fury, etc.
Thanks for jumping in though!
stratokaster
Top Veteran
- Location
- Dublin, Ireland
- Name
- Pavel
Thank you, Bart. That's what I was talking about but it was a long day, I was tired and struggling with words.
The closest analogy I can think of is rain. Your lawn and your neighbor's lawn will be equally wet (i. e. every square inch of your respective lawns will get the same amount of water drops), but if your lawn is bigger, it will get a bigger total amount of water.
entropic remnants
Hall of Famer
- Name
- John Griggs
Okay, that I'll buy, lol -- but now I'm upset because you reminded me I need to cut the grass. Dang you, Pavel!
Good luck! Let's just hope it doesn't rain :tongue:
Well...I'm now a full fledged member of the Fuji club!
I took delivery of my X-Pro1 and love it. I still have my X100S and the love hasn't diminished at all.
I do plan on getting the 14mm f/2.8 for the XP1 in the not-too-distant-future.
Here is one representative pic that I've taken.
View attachment 76022
I took delivery of my X-Pro1 and love it. I still have my X100S and the love hasn't diminished at all.
I do plan on getting the 14mm f/2.8 for the XP1 in the not-too-distant-future.
Here is one representative pic that I've taken.
View attachment 76022
