Lens Aperture and Sensor Size

photoptimist · 11-04-2017, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Nicolas06

The lens may be cheap and easy to design, but the problem is the cost. Using film, each shot is quite costly. Using digital, the price of the sensor is like the one of a luxury car.

So true! So true!

And then there's the weight of the large format camera + tripod, setup time, lack of automation, 0.01 fps burst rate, etc.

On the other hand the cost of a 50 f/0.8 lens that is flawless corner-to-corner wide open is ......?

One of the issues intrinsic to the original discussion is the general lack (or cost) of extremely fast and corner-to-corner sharp lenses for smaller format cameras. A decent 50 @ f/2.0 on FF costs less and optically outperforms a 25 @ f/1.0 on M4/3.

Nicolas06 · 11-04-2017, 04:51 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by photoptimist

So true! So true!

And then there's the weight of the large format camera + tripod, setup time, lack of automation, 0.01 fps burst rate, etc.

On the other hand the cost of a 50 f/0.8 lens that is flawless corner-to-corner wide open is ......?

One of the issues intrinsic to the original discussion is the general lack (or cost) of extremely fast and corner-to-corner sharp lenses for smaller format cameras. A decent 50 @ f/2.0 on FF costs less and optically outperforms a 25 @ f/1.0 on M4/3.

But the system that get the thinner dof out of a 50mm f/2.0 is the smaller format, not the FF. To achieve similar dof the FF would need a 100mm f/4.

It really depend then of type of framing you want, the apperture you need and what available on the system.

To get the isolation of 85mm f/1.2 for FF on cropped 645 one would need a 110mm f/1.6. Maybe it is easier to get a 85mm f/1.2 on Canon FF than getting a 110mm f/1.6 for 645...

52mm · 11-04-2017, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by angerdan

The FA 35mm f/2 has an 13% longer build length than the DA 50mm f/1.8, so just a small difference.

Sure, but it's still bigger rather than smaller, and slower to boot. If you wanted a 35mm f/1.25... well, just look at the various 35mm f/1.4s. And 35s still are quite moderate. Go to 28 or even 24, and things start spiralling out of control. I did find the odd vintage 35 that was at least worth using over the 18-55 kit... 28, not so much.

Originally posted by photoptimist

One of the issues intrinsic to the original discussion is the general lack (or cost) of extremely fast and corner-to-corner sharp lenses for smaller format cameras. A decent 50 @ f/2.0 on FF costs less and optically outperforms a 25 @ f/1.0 on M4/3.

And the crop sensor doesn't even get a 33mm f/1.5 on the expected level if you interpolate between the two.

Originally posted by Nicolas06

But the system that get the thinner dof out of a 50mm f/2.0 is the smaller format, not the FF. To achieve similar dof the FF would need a 100mm f/4.

I think you two are saying the same, just from a different perspective.
25mm f/1.0 (M4/3) vs. 50mm f/2.0 (FF)
is entirely equivalent to
50mm f/2.0 (M4/3) vs. 100mm f/4 (FF).

The way things have been going in the last decade or two, we might still see "affordable" medium format digital cameras within our lifetime ("affordable" complete with quotes in the way that FFs are now)?

Nicolas06 · 11-05-2017, 03:18 AM

Originally posted by 52mm

Sure, but it's still bigger rather than smaller, and slower to boot. If you wanted a 35mm f/1.25... well, just look at the various 35mm f/1.4s. And 35s still are quite moderate. Go to 28 or even 24, and things start spiralling out of control. I did find the odd vintage 35 that was at least worth using over the 18-55 kit... 28, not so much.

Only because the 24, 28 and 35mm design you speak of are basically FF design and have to cope with the DSLR registration distance and mirror. The registration distance of K-mount make sense for an FF, not so much for an APSC.

The Fuji 35mm f/1.4 and 23mm f/1.4 are quite moderate in size/weight.

Quote:

I think you two are saying the same, just from a different perspective.
25mm f/1.0 (M4/3) vs. 50mm f/2.0 (FF)
is entirely equivalent to
50mm f/2.0 (M4/3) vs. 100mm f/4 (FF).

But if you have the same focal length and max apperture on both, this is the smaller format that will provide the less dof because of the increased magnification.

Originally posted by 52mm

The way things have been going in the last decade or two, we might still see "affordable" medium format digital cameras within our lifetime ("affordable" complete with quotes in the way that FFs are now)?

Possible, but for me MF will stay in a niche market basically because with digital FF is provide lot of quality already and few need more.

11-04-2017, 05:13 PM	#48
52mm Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Ulm Posts: 45	Originally posted by angerdan The FA 35mm f/2 has an 13% longer build length than the DA 50mm f/1.8, so just a small difference. Sure, but it's still bigger rather than smaller, and slower to boot. If you wanted a 35mm f/1.25... well, just look at the various 35mm f/1.4s. And 35s still are quite moderate. Go to 28 or even 24, and things start spiralling out of control. I did find the odd vintage 35 that was at least worth using over the 18-55 kit... 28, not so much. Originally posted by photoptimist One of the issues intrinsic to the original discussion is the general lack (or cost) of extremely fast and corner-to-corner sharp lenses for smaller format cameras. A decent 50 @ f/2.0 on FF costs less and optically outperforms a 25 @ f/1.0 on M4/3. And the crop sensor doesn't even get a 33mm f/1.5 on the expected level if you interpolate between the two. Originally posted by Nicolas06 But the system that get the thinner dof out of a 50mm f/2.0 is the smaller format, not the FF. To achieve similar dof the FF would need a 100mm f/4. I think you two are saying the same, just from a different perspective. 25mm f/1.0 (M4/3) vs. 50mm f/2.0 (FF) is entirely equivalent to 50mm f/2.0 (M4/3) vs. 100mm f/4 (FF). The way things have been going in the last decade or two, we might still see "affordable" medium format digital cameras within our lifetime ("affordable" complete with quotes in the way that FFs are now)? Last edited by 52mm; 11-04-2017 at 05:31 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Aperture control problems with variable aperture lenses (with aperture rings)	gtxSeries	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	3	09-13-2017 01:11 PM
Picture file size, picture pixel size, resizeing picture, discussion	panonski	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	11	12-01-2016 08:38 AM
Understanding perspective vs lens size vs sensor size (lens mechanics?)	soycory	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	19	12-23-2014 07:40 AM
Does size (lens elements/filter size) really matter?	Vantage-Point	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	11-03-2014 05:31 PM
Sensor Size and Pixel Size	interested_observer	Photographic Technique	5	02-04-2012 07:59 AM

11-04-2017, 04:40 PM	#46
photoptimist Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,128	Originally posted by Nicolas06 The lens may be cheap and easy to design, but the problem is the cost. Using film, each shot is quite costly. Using digital, the price of the sensor is like the one of a luxury car. So true! So true! And then there's the weight of the large format camera + tripod, setup time, lack of automation, 0.01 fps burst rate, etc. On the other hand the cost of a 50 f/0.8 lens that is flawless corner-to-corner wide open is ......? One of the issues intrinsic to the original discussion is the general lack (or cost) of extremely fast and corner-to-corner sharp lenses for smaller format cameras. A decent 50 @ f/2.0 on FF costs less and optically outperforms a 25 @ f/1.0 on M4/3.

11-04-2017, 04:51 PM - 1 Like	#47
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by photoptimist So true! So true! And then there's the weight of the large format camera + tripod, setup time, lack of automation, 0.01 fps burst rate, etc. On the other hand the cost of a 50 f/0.8 lens that is flawless corner-to-corner wide open is ......? One of the issues intrinsic to the original discussion is the general lack (or cost) of extremely fast and corner-to-corner sharp lenses for smaller format cameras. A decent 50 @ f/2.0 on FF costs less and optically outperforms a 25 @ f/1.0 on M4/3. But the system that get the thinner dof out of a 50mm f/2.0 is the smaller format, not the FF. To achieve similar dof the FF would need a 100mm f/4. It really depend then of type of framing you want, the apperture you need and what available on the system. To get the isolation of 85mm f/1.2 for FF on cropped 645 one would need a 110mm f/1.6. Maybe it is easier to get a 85mm f/1.2 on Canon FF than getting a 110mm f/1.6 for 645...

11-05-2017, 03:18 AM	#49
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by 52mm Sure, but it's still bigger rather than smaller, and slower to boot. If you wanted a 35mm f/1.25... well, just look at the various 35mm f/1.4s. And 35s still are quite moderate. Go to 28 or even 24, and things start spiralling out of control. I did find the odd vintage 35 that was at least worth using over the 18-55 kit... 28, not so much. Only because the 24, 28 and 35mm design you speak of are basically FF design and have to cope with the DSLR registration distance and mirror. The registration distance of K-mount make sense for an FF, not so much for an APSC. The Fuji 35mm f/1.4 and 23mm f/1.4 are quite moderate in size/weight. Quote: I think you two are saying the same, just from a different perspective. 25mm f/1.0 (M4/3) vs. 50mm f/2.0 (FF) is entirely equivalent to 50mm f/2.0 (M4/3) vs. 100mm f/4 (FF). But if you have the same focal length and max apperture on both, this is the smaller format that will provide the less dof because of the increased magnification. Originally posted by 52mm The way things have been going in the last decade or two, we might still see "affordable" medium format digital cameras within our lifetime ("affordable" complete with quotes in the way that FFs are now)? Possible, but for me MF will stay in a niche market basically because with digital FF is provide lot of quality already and few need more.