Originally posted by mepaca Ok, well let me rephrase that - a 207mm equivalent f2.8 lens.
a 207mm equivalent
f/13 lens. That all it is about. You said you did understood isn't it ? So why do you continue to use the wrong equivalence numbers?
This is not to say this tele is no good. I have nothing against it. This is conveniant and in good light you get nices shoots. That the whole point isn't it ? But you know all smartphone have f/2.5 or wide apperture prime now. Their lenses are few mm wide. Many compact also have f/2-f/2.8 zooms lens now. f/2.8 is pretty standard for such sensor size.
This is not bad or good, and for sure f/2.8 still allow for shallower deph of field and more light than f/5.6... This is all valid while you keep a given sensor.
But from practical point of view, if you take 2 shoots with same framing at 200mm (FF framing), one with the Q-S1 the other one with an FF, both at f/2.8:
- the deph of field will be dramatically different.
- iso setting will be the same for both... Meaning the FF will offer much better quality... Same at iso 2000 on FF than at iso100 on Q-S1.
Anybody looking at the 2 image will immediately spot the difference. First of deph of field at low isos setting, second of noise at high isos setting. While if you set f/13 on the FF lense... Well it will look the same.
I insist because some people might think for example that their 55-300 f/3.5-5.6 might be not as suitable as f/2.8 Q-S1 lense due to the f/5.6 only while it is obviously wrong. Another example. DA70 ltd is not that big. Still put it on K3, shoot at f/4, crop to 50% size and you get equivalent of 210mm FF framing f/11 6MP shoot... Half the pixels that what you would get Q-S1 45mm @ f/2.8, but still 0.5EV more for noise performance. And the lense isn't that big.
Last edited by Nicolas06; 12-27-2014 at 07:55 AM.