You make a very valid case about lenses. Also the ergonomics of shooting a small camera with a LCD screen and having my arms extended out a couple of feet is not a good feeling for me or very reassuring it just doesn't feel right.
See I just don't see DSLRs going away any time soon for these reasons and more.
Maybe they will sort through some of the obstacles or maybe some kind of combination with large glass.
It will have to be some material other than glass if the lenses are to get smaller.
Although I am seriously considering purchasing the x pro 1 for a second camera,as apposed to replacing my 5d mii with the new miii .
Sure if you don't need the AF that the 5DIII offers, the X-Pro 1 is very attractive as an upper-middle-class Leica! Wish I could have one, but I need the AF. Kids, ya know?
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
... It will have to be some material other than glass if the lenses are to get smaller. ...
The glass types (and fluorite crystal) used in current lens construction are already about as efficient in transmitting light as you can get. Future zoom lens formulas may improve a little, but that's about it.
The glass types (and fluorite crystal) used in current lens construction are already about as efficient in transmitting light as you can get. Future zoom lens formulas may improve a little, but that's about it.
Agreed, which is why I said we will have to come up with something other than glass - something like a synthetic eyeball lens. Fluid, gel, ectoplasm, whatever.... something space-aged that isn't even on the drawing board yet. (or maybe it is)
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Agreed, which is why I said we will have to come up with something other than glass - something like a synthetic eyeball lens. Fluid, gel, ectoplasm, whatever.... something space-aged that isn't even on the drawing board yet. (or maybe it is)
Or make the sensor smaller, which lets you use a smaller imaging circle, which lets you use a smaller lens.
Agreed, which is why I said we will have to come up with something other than glass - something like a synthetic eyeball lens. Fluid, gel, ectoplasm, whatever.... something space-aged that isn't even on the drawing board yet. (or maybe it is)
A little lens theory is in order.
The maximum "f" number of a lens, basically the ability of a lens to collect light, is a simple function of the focal length of the lens and the opening (entrance) of the lens. Specifically, the maximum "possible" aperture of a simple lens is focal-length/diameter. A 100mm lens with 50mm front element diameter will have a theoretical maximum aperture of f2.
My Canon EF 135mm, f2L USM has a front filter thread of 72mm. Dividing 135mm by 72mm I get 1.875. Of course, the opening of the lens is a little less than 72mm, so that lens is extremely efficient at light transmission.
It's correct to say that no lens is 100 percent efficient in its optical design, but the best modern lens designs are very efficient in light transmission. There is no material, "Fluid, gel, ectoplasm, whatever...." that can improve much on current lens glass formulations, including fluorite.
Just as an aside, "glass" is only a semi-solid. Over a few hundred years, all common glass formulations will flow a bit. Glass panes used in window displays for a hundred years can have a measurable difference between top and bottom thickness, for instance.
Or make the sensor smaller, which lets you use a smaller imaging circle, which lets you use a smaller lens.
Absolutely true. The Olympus ED 35-100mm, f2.0, designed for the Olympus Four Thirds system camera bodies, has a field-of-view (FOV) similar to the 70-200mm lenses on a full-frame (FF) camera body, but the Olympus zoom is an "f2" effective aperture, letting in twice as much light from the scene.
An f2 telephoto zoom is a remarkable achievement, and mostly possible because of the smaller format system.
Absolutely true. The Olympus ED 35-100mm, f2.0, designed for the Olympus Four Thirds system camera bodies, has a field-of-view (FOV) similar to the 70-200mm lenses on a full-frame (FF) camera body, but the Olympus zoom is an "f2" effective aperture, letting in twice as much light from the scene.
An f2 telephoto zoom is a remarkable achievement, and mostly possible because of the smaller format system.
True, but m4/3 is 2 stops slower than FF, so it's still behind. Oly needs f/2 just to break even with APS-C. Besides, I've heard that Oly f/2 zooms are really just older f/2.8 designs with an extra element added to bring them to f/2. I haven't confirmed this but it's not encouraging.
Someday we may invent a lens and sensor that is as good as the human eye. It will be about as good and fast as a 50mm f/1.2 lens is on Full Frame today, but obviously much smaller. Still, DOF will suffer. Cover one eye and look around your room to see why.
My 35mm f/1.4 on FF seems pretty close to the human eye, but it's a big honking package...
(ISO 400)
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
True, but m4/3 is 2 stops slower than FF, so it's still behind. Oly needs f/2 just to break even with APS-C. Besides, I've heard that Oly f/2 zooms are really just older f/2.8 designs with an extra element added to bring them to f/2. I haven't confirmed this but it's not encouraging.
Not sure what you mean by two stops slower? Aperture is expressed as a ratio, so physical size of the lens or sensor is not a consideration.
About the only thing you "lose" is bokeh-- and in a few years the processors on the cameras will be able to add that in automatically. And it will look real.
... I've heard that Oly f/2 zooms are really just older f/2.8 designs with an extra element added to bring them to f/2. I haven't confirmed this but it's not encouraging.
...
That is extremely unlikely. Regardless, the available image samples and reviews from the Olympus ED 35-100mm, f2.0 are indicating a lens of extremely high quality:
... Someday we may invent a lens and sensor that is as good as the human eye. It will be about as good and fast as a 50mm f/1.2 lens is on Full Frame today, but obviously much smaller. Still, DOF will suffer. Cover one eye and look around your room to see why.
My 35mm f/1.4 on FF seems pretty close to the human eye, but it's a big honking package...
(ISO 400)
The average human eye (no two eyes are the same) is estimated (including some peripheral vision) to be approximately similar to the FOV of a 50mm lens on a FF 135 format camera. The actual focal length of the human eye is estimated at 22-24mm. The estimated f-stop equivalence for the human eye is around f2.1-f3.2 when the pupil is wide open, down to approximately f8 when the pupil is closed, but the eye lid open.
The average human eye (no two eyes are the same) is estimated (including some peripheral vision) to be approximately similar to the FOV of a 50mm lens on a FF 135 format camera. The actual focal length of the human eye is estimated at 22-24mm. The estimated f-stop equivalence for the human eye is around f2.1-f3.2 when the pupil is wide open, down to approximately f8 when the pupil is closed, but the eye lid open.
Cool. Obviously the retina and brain is way more efficient and less noisy than a CMOS sensor, thus f2.1-f3.2 seems to work as well as f1.2 or f1.0 on a current FF DSLR by my estimation.
Cool. Obviously the retina and brain is way more efficient and less noisy than a CMOS sensor, thus f2.1-f3.2 seems to work as well as f1.2 or f1.0 on a current FF DSLR by my estimation.
I mean the sensitivity of the sensor. ISO 100 on a m4/3 looks about like ISO 400 on a 5DII:
Well, my eyesite must be going, 'cause I just spent a few minutes over at dpreview comparing raw files of the 5dII and the Panasonic GX1 at ISO 200, and I couldn't tell the difference.*
*Maybe a teensy tiny bit of chroma noise in the very darkest shadows. Maybe. and some very slight lum. noise in the purest reds.
That doesn't surprise me. I would hope the GX1 is mostly clean at 200. Crank it up to 1600 or 3200 and try again. It is all about equivalentexposures across different size formats. I can speak from experience that the 5DII starts to pull away from the 7D at ISO 800.
I can't justify $1700 for the X Pro 1 that has poor focusing !
Any recommendations ?
In the mean time Fuji has updated the firmware which made the focus much faster.
I'm surprised to see so few X-Pro1 threads on this forum. The X-Pro is a very capable
camera rivalling the 5D2 in image quality. But what I really love about it is how stealthy
it is compared to a DSLR in public. The people just don't get nervous when one points
the X-Pro towards them
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
In the mean time Fuji has updated the firmware which made the focus much faster.
I'm surprised to see so few X-Pro1 threads on this forum. The X-Pro is a very capable
camera rivalling the 5D2 in image quality. But what I really love about it is how stealthy
it is compared to a DSLR in public. The people just don't get nervous when one points
the X-Pro towards them
A rangefinder type camera/P.S compared to a big honkin DSLR certainly makes a big difference in how one goes about taking pictures. I am waiting for the new Leica M with 24 megapixal coming out in early 2013. I haven't really looked at the X-Pro1 camera but I like a full frame. Compactness ,and the image quality is what I am after though.Thanks for the recommendation !
A rangefinder type camera/P.S compared to a big honkin DSLR certainly makes a big difference in how one goes about taking pictures. I am waiting for the new Leica M with 24 megapixal coming out in early 2013. I haven't really looked at the X-Pro1 camera but I like a full frame. Compactness ,and the image quality is what I am after though.Thanks for the recommendation !
As of now, the Fuji X-Pro runs circles around the Leica M9 in terms of IQ at higher ISOs.
I was even more surprised to see that the $600 Fujinon 35mm XF f/1.4 R lens even beats
the $4000 Leica Summilux 50mm f/1.4.
I think the only advantage Leica has right now is the bokeh due to the full frame sensor and
the larger lens selection.
Zeiss has started to produce XF Mount AF lenses btw. they are expected to hit the market
during June 2013.
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
As of now, the Fuji X-Pro runs circles around the Leica M9 in terms of IQ at higher ISOs.
I was even more surprised to see that the $600 Fujinon 35mm XF f/1.4 R lens even beats
the $4000 Leica Summilux 50mm f/1.4.
I think the only advantage Leica has right now is the bokeh due to the full frame sensor and
the larger lens selection.
Zeiss has started to produce XF Mount AF lenses btw. they are expected to hit the market
during June 2013.
X Pro 1 looks like an awesome camera ! I was referring to the latest Leica M coming out in 2013.Anything wider than 35mm lens is too wide and a 50mm is too cramped for me.
I went to look at this camera and the P7700, but then I saw the Canon EOS M, and that was cool.
The M is very nice if you don't need a viewfinder.
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
Ah, I guess when I'm thinking P&S, I don't really care about a view finder. And like you can mount any Canon lens to it. And that cute little flash for it!
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
Comments
See I just don't see DSLRs going away any time soon for these reasons and more.
It will have to be some material other than glass if the lenses are to get smaller.
Sure if you don't need the AF that the 5DIII offers, the X-Pro 1 is very attractive as an upper-middle-class Leica! Wish I could have one, but I need the AF. Kids, ya know?
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
The glass types (and fluorite crystal) used in current lens construction are already about as efficient in transmitting light as you can get. Future zoom lens formulas may improve a little, but that's about it.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Agreed, which is why I said we will have to come up with something other than glass - something like a synthetic eyeball lens. Fluid, gel, ectoplasm, whatever.... something space-aged that isn't even on the drawing board yet. (or maybe it is)
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Or make the sensor smaller, which lets you use a smaller imaging circle, which lets you use a smaller lens.
A little lens theory is in order.
The maximum "f" number of a lens, basically the ability of a lens to collect light, is a simple function of the focal length of the lens and the opening (entrance) of the lens. Specifically, the maximum "possible" aperture of a simple lens is focal-length/diameter. A 100mm lens with 50mm front element diameter will have a theoretical maximum aperture of f2.
My Canon EF 135mm, f2L USM has a front filter thread of 72mm. Dividing 135mm by 72mm I get 1.875. Of course, the opening of the lens is a little less than 72mm, so that lens is extremely efficient at light transmission.
It's correct to say that no lens is 100 percent efficient in its optical design, but the best modern lens designs are very efficient in light transmission. There is no material, "Fluid, gel, ectoplasm, whatever...." that can improve much on current lens glass formulations, including fluorite.
Just as an aside, "glass" is only a semi-solid. Over a few hundred years, all common glass formulations will flow a bit. Glass panes used in window displays for a hundred years can have a measurable difference between top and bottom thickness, for instance.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Absolutely true. The Olympus ED 35-100mm, f2.0, designed for the Olympus Four Thirds system camera bodies, has a field-of-view (FOV) similar to the 70-200mm lenses on a full-frame (FF) camera body, but the Olympus zoom is an "f2" effective aperture, letting in twice as much light from the scene.
An f2 telephoto zoom is a remarkable achievement, and mostly possible because of the smaller format system.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
True, but m4/3 is 2 stops slower than FF, so it's still behind. Oly needs f/2 just to break even with APS-C. Besides, I've heard that Oly f/2 zooms are really just older f/2.8 designs with an extra element added to bring them to f/2. I haven't confirmed this but it's not encouraging.
Someday we may invent a lens and sensor that is as good as the human eye. It will be about as good and fast as a 50mm f/1.2 lens is on Full Frame today, but obviously much smaller. Still, DOF will suffer. Cover one eye and look around your room to see why.
My 35mm f/1.4 on FF seems pretty close to the human eye, but it's a big honking package...
(ISO 400)
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Not sure what you mean by two stops slower? Aperture is expressed as a ratio, so physical size of the lens or sensor is not a consideration.
About the only thing you "lose" is bokeh-- and in a few years the processors on the cameras will be able to add that in automatically. And it will look real.
That is extremely unlikely. Regardless, the available image samples and reviews from the Olympus ED 35-100mm, f2.0 are indicating a lens of extremely high quality:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/43
http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2008/12/lens-test-olympus-zuiko-digital-ed-35-100mm-f2
https://www.google.com/search?q=Olympus+ED+35-100mm&hl=en&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=hqBXT_r7NcHcggf1_YDNDA&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CBgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1111&bih=537#q=Olympus+ED+35-100mm&hl=en&tbs=imgo:1,isz:lt,islt:6mp&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=aqNXT-mAL4SugQf0mbz4DA&ved=0CBUQpwUoBA&fp=1&biw=1111&bih=537&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&cad=b
The average human eye (no two eyes are the same) is estimated (including some peripheral vision) to be approximately similar to the FOV of a 50mm lens on a FF 135 format camera. The actual focal length of the human eye is estimated at 22-24mm. The estimated f-stop equivalence for the human eye is around f2.1-f3.2 when the pupil is wide open, down to approximately f8 when the pupil is closed, but the eye lid open.
Best accumulated information:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Cool. Obviously the retina and brain is way more efficient and less noisy than a CMOS sensor, thus f2.1-f3.2 seems to work as well as f1.2 or f1.0 on a current FF DSLR by my estimation.
I mean the sensitivity of the sensor. ISO 100 on a m4/3 looks about like ISO 400 on a 5DII:
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#equivalentsettings
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Well, my eyesite must be going, 'cause I just spent a few minutes over at dpreview comparing raw files of the 5dII and the Panasonic GX1 at ISO 200, and I couldn't tell the difference.*
*Maybe a teensy tiny bit of chroma noise in the very darkest shadows. Maybe. and some very slight lum. noise in the purest reds.
http://www.jmphotocraft.com/5DII_v_7D/ISO_test/
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Any recommendations ?
Lensmole
http://www.lensmolephotography.com/
In the mean time Fuji has updated the firmware which made the focus much faster.
I'm surprised to see so few X-Pro1 threads on this forum. The X-Pro is a very capable
camera rivalling the 5D2 in image quality. But what I really love about it is how stealthy
it is compared to a DSLR in public. The people just don't get nervous when one points
the X-Pro towards them
― Edward Weston
A rangefinder type camera/P.S compared to a big honkin DSLR certainly makes a big difference in how one goes about taking pictures. I am waiting for the new Leica M with 24 megapixal coming out in early 2013. I haven't really looked at the X-Pro1 camera but I like a full frame. Compactness ,and the image quality is what I am after though.Thanks for the recommendation !
Lensmole
http://www.lensmolephotography.com/
As of now, the Fuji X-Pro runs circles around the Leica M9 in terms of IQ at higher ISOs.
I was even more surprised to see that the $600 Fujinon 35mm XF f/1.4 R lens even beats
the $4000 Leica Summilux 50mm f/1.4.
But see for yourself: http://leicarumors.com/2012/04/11/quick-leica-m9-vs-fuji-x-pro1-image-comparison.aspx/
I think the only advantage Leica has right now is the bokeh due to the full frame sensor and
the larger lens selection.
Zeiss has started to produce XF Mount AF lenses btw. they are expected to hit the market
during June 2013.
― Edward Weston
X Pro 1 looks like an awesome camera ! I was referring to the latest Leica M coming out in 2013.Anything wider than 35mm lens is too wide and a 50mm is too cramped for me.
Lensmole
http://www.lensmolephotography.com/
The M is very nice if you don't need a viewfinder.
― Edward Weston
― Edward Weston