[Unsinkable II]

And 25mm f/1 on m4/3 is equivalent of 50mm f/2.0 on FF.
.

I stand corrected!

[Blue]

It's a m4/3 lens not APS-C lens. So if you use ISO200 on m4/3 you will get same image quality with ISO 800 on FF. And 25mm f/1 on m4/3 is equivalent of 50mm f/2.0 on FF.

The biggest difference is that you need to use a big and fast lens on a small sensor camera to get the same result as a smaller and slower lens on a big sensor camera.

The physics of the lens does NOT change. Its posts like this that causes a lot of misinformation to be spread. For example, the FA 50/1.4 acts the same way on the MZ-3 with Kodak 200 as it does on the K200d set to ISO 200. The difference is the FOV.

[Fogel70]

The physics of the lens does NOT change. Its posts like this that causes a lot of misinformation to be spread. For example, the FA 50/1.4 acts the same way on the MZ-3 with Kodak 200 as it does on the K200d set to ISO 200. The difference is the FOV.

Of course the physics do not change, but the pictures do. And for most, the pictures are more important than physics of the lens.
Do you really think that two pictures with different FOV are the same?

If you want "normal" focal length on FF sensor you use 40-50mm, and on (m)4/3 you use 20-25mm.

[Blue]

Of course the physics do not change, but the pictures do. And for most, the pictures are more important than physics of the lens.
Do you really think that two pictures with different FOV are the same?

If you want "normal" focal length on FF sensor you use 40-50mm, and on (m)4/3 you use 20-25mm.

Nice dodge. Its the ISO comments that I was questioning. I already stated the FOV was different. Next you will be telling me that Portra 160NC has a different ISO on 135, 645, 6x7 and 4x5 formats.

[Fogel70]

Nice dodge. Its the ISO comments that I was questioning. I already stated the FOV was different. Next you will be telling me that Portra 160NC has a different ISO on 135, 645, 6x7 and 4x5 formats.

What I said was image quality on FF with ISO 800 will be the same as ISO200 on (m)4/3, and that is just simple physics as both sensors then will collect the same amount of light. Differnt sensors ISO definition is the same, but their ability to collect light is different which makes noise levels different at the same ISO.

[deadwolfbones]

For the record, my GF1 puts out "cleaner" images (less noise/grain) at base ISO than my K-7, both shooting RAW.

[Fogel70]

For the record, my GF1 puts out "cleaner" images (less noise/grain) at base ISO than my K-7, both shooting RAW.

Yes, sensor technology is another factor in the equation. But if same sensor technology is used on different sized sensors, the larger one will always perform better.

[deadwolfbones]

Yes, sensor technology is another factor in the equation. But if same sensor technology is used on different sized sensors, the larger one will always perform better.

What I meant to imply is that the gap is not so large as to be immediately noticeable, except with regard to DoF.

I have a m4/3, APS-C, and FF camera, and I get equally pleasing (if somewhat different) images out of each.

[LesMizzell]

... Fuji has gone and done it. It does look like a beautiful camera.

... and, just like with some of the Pentax crowd that are already criticizing a new product they've never seen, there's already Fuji folks out there saying "This new Fuji is ugly and looks like it's just for old people".

Anybody want to meet me over at these peoples houses and hold them down for me while I smack them?

[uccemebug]

For the record, my GF1 puts out "cleaner" images (less noise/grain) at base ISO than my K-7, both shooting RAW.

Do you reckon that that is due to noise reduction? Does the detail compare well between the two?

... and, just like with some of the Pentax crowd that are already criticizing a new product they've never seen, there's already Fuji folks out there saying "This new Fuji is ugly and looks like it's just for old people".

Anybody want to meet me over at these peoples houses and hold them down for me while I smack them?

I'm in. Fer cryin' out loud!

P.S. Welcome to Pentax Forums. You've already quickly deduced that it all boils down to complaining. ;^)

[Blue]

... and, just like with some of the Pentax crowd that are already criticizing a new product they've never seen, there's already Fuji folks out there saying "This new Fuji is ugly and looks like it's just for old people".

Anybody want to meet me over at these peoples houses and hold them down for me while I smack them?

They are just young a dumb. That's funny coming from fans of a film maker. I like the looks of that Fuji. The lens on the proto-type has possibilities as well. The projected price made me flinch but not as bad as the price of the X1 did.

[deadwolfbones]

Do you reckon that that is due to noise reduction? Does the detail compare well between the two?

Not sure. On the GF1 I've got NR set to 0 (the default), but it goes to -2 (lowest NR). I can do a comparison between the two. Nevertheless, the detail is quite good at NR0.

Perhaps too good for some people's sense of vanity:


(ISO 100, f/1.7, NR0)

Another:

(ISO100, f/1.7, NR0)


The biggest failing w/r/t the GF1 for me is not in the noise, sharpness, or anything else but the dynamic range, which is not as good as my K-7 or anywhere close to the magic of the D700 sensor. (See the completely blown out chair in the second shot.)

[uccemebug]

Not sure. On the GF1 I've got NR set to 0 (the default), but it goes to -2 (lowest NR). I can do a comparison between the two. Nevertheless, the detail is quite good at NR0.

Perhaps too good for some people's sense of vanity:

The biggest failing w/r/t the GF1 for me is not in the noise, sharpness, or anything else but the dynamic range, which is not as good as my K-7 or anywhere close to the magic of the D700 sensor. (See the completely blown out chair in the second shot.)

Nice images! I do see what you mean, though. But given its many other abilities—and as you point out, the clarity of the images—I'd say its a fairly small trade-off.

[stanleyk]

P.S. Welcome to Pentax Forums. You've already quickly deduced that it all boils down to complaining. ;^)

No kidding!!! I've never seen so many people who want a Nikon or Canon and just won't go out and buy one.......

I must admit I have sort of morbid fascination with this forum. Honest to goodness, I've never knew there were this many unhappy camera owners. I just kinda figured you got a camera and had fun with it whatever it's limitations. Boy was I off base there. On the other hand, this forum does present a fascinating study in self immolating masochism that I just can't turn away from. It's really like that proverbial car wreck that you don't want to look at but just can't stop yourself.

[stanleyk]

Nice images! I do see what you mean, though. But given its many other abilities—and as you point out, the clarity of the images—I'd say its a fairly small trade-off.

Trust me the IQ on these little Panasonic and Olympus cameras is quite good. And if you don't print bigger than say 16 X 20 you aren't going to tell the difference. I think the Panasonic might be the better camera, but the Olympus as more of the je ne se qua.

The Panasonic 20mm is as good a lens as I own.