Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Down

Author Topic: Interesting Q&A from a fashion pro on giving up his Phase One system.  (Read 20445 times)

landscapephoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 623
Re: Interesting Q&A from a fashion pro on giving up his Phase One system.
« Reply #80 on: February 24, 2016, 02:18:07 am »

The main advantage? Resolution and MTF.  Other than that? Twice the usable ISO with twice the sensor size, else 'naye'.

You may have twice the ISO with a sensor twice as big, but 24x36 lenses are also twice as fast.
Logged

Christoph B.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 341
Re: Interesting Q&A from a fashion pro on giving up his Phase One system.
« Reply #81 on: February 24, 2016, 03:17:23 am »

You may have twice the ISO with a sensor twice as big, but 24x36 lenses are also twice as fast.

Really? I remember working with a 24-105mm 4.0, a 300mm 4.0 a 50mm 2.0, 150mm 2.8 etc on small format cameras.


At the same time you can find 80mm 1.9 lenses for medium format or a Hasselblad 100 2.0, Pentax 105 2.4, 165mm 2.8...

Also http://www.ebay.com/itm/Zeiss-Ernemann-Ermanox-4-5-x-6-cm-Serial-1253852-Ernostar-1-8-x-8-5-cm-/121175258757
Logged

landscapephoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 623
Re: Interesting Q&A from a fashion pro on giving up his Phase One system.
« Reply #82 on: February 24, 2016, 03:34:54 am »

Really? I remember working with a 24-105mm 4.0, a 300mm 4.0 a 50mm 2.0, 150mm 2.8 etc on small format cameras.


At the same time you can find 80mm 1.9 lenses for medium format or a Hasselblad 100 2.0, Pentax 105 2.4, 165mm 2.8...

Also http://www.ebay.com/itm/Zeiss-Ernemann-Ermanox-4-5-x-6-cm-Serial-1253852-Ernostar-1-8-x-8-5-cm-/121175258757

You are playing with words.

Common amongst 24x36 zooms are f/2.8. MZ zooms are typically f/4-f/5.6.
Common amongst 24x36 primes are f/1.4, exceptionally f/1.2. MF primes are typically f/2.8-f/4, exceptionally around f/2.

Sure, you will find some very slow 24x36 zooms and some faster MF primes. But in practice, low light photography is easier with 24x36 cameras. When I want to take pictures of, say, a Jazz concert in a not so well lit Jazz club, I know why I do not take my MF camera.
Logged

Christoph B.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 341
Re: Interesting Q&A from a fashion pro on giving up his Phase One system.
« Reply #83 on: February 24, 2016, 05:58:32 am »

You are playing with words.

Common amongst 24x36 zooms are f/2.8. MZ zooms are typically f/4-f/5.6.
Common amongst 24x36 primes are f/1.4, exceptionally f/1.2. MF primes are typically f/2.8-f/4, exceptionally around f/2.

Sure, you will find some very slow 24x36 zooms and some faster MF primes. But in practice, low light photography is easier with 24x36 cameras. When I want to take pictures of, say, a Jazz concert in a not so well lit Jazz club, I know why I do not take my MF camera.

1.4 vs 1.8 for a 'standard' focal length isn't that much of a difference - and I bet you'll find more zooms in the range of 3.5-5.6 for small format than 2.8.
And there are lots of primes in the 2.0-2.8 range. Look at Pentax 67 lenses, they have 2.8 up to 165mm and 4.0 up to 800mm - even the Canon, Nikon and Sigma 800mm are 'only' 5.6 lenses!
And you can find 300mm 2.8's from a lot of makers.

However I think the whole 'argument' is flawed, the DoF is very small even at 4.0 and a lot of MF lenses are quite sharp at 4.0 - if you had a 2.8 lens with the same coverage it would be too big and heavy to be usable, especially handheld.
Imagine a 2.8 zoom that has to cover 645 or even 67 - that would be huge and uncomfortable to use, DoF would be razor thin - even with a good AF system you'd only get a fraction of your shots in focus.

MF lenses don't need to be superfast. They can be but they don't have to be.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Interesting Q&A from a fashion pro on giving up his Phase One system.
« Reply #84 on: February 24, 2016, 07:33:55 am »

Hi,

As a rule, high end zooms for 24x36mm use to be f/2.8. High end primes are usually f/1.4. How useful those apertures are is obviously a good question. Personally, I would prefer excellent medium aperture designs.

We start to a set of great f/1.4 lenses. The Zeiss Milvus 50/1.4 and 80/1.4 are new designs with 10-11 elements and AD glass, while the older lenses have just 6-7 elements. Sigma also makes a new generation of advanced lens designs.

Best regards
Erik

1.4 vs 1.8 for a 'standard' focal length isn't that much of a difference - and I bet you'll find more zooms in the range of 3.5-5.6 for small format than 2.8.
And there are lots of primes in the 2.0-2.8 range. Look at Pentax 67 lenses, they have 2.8 up to 165mm and 4.0 up to 800mm - even the Canon, Nikon and Sigma 800mm are 'only' 5.6 lenses!
And you can find 300mm 2.8's from a lot of makers.

However I think the whole 'argument' is flawed, the DoF is very small even at 4.0 and a lot of MF lenses are quite sharp at 4.0 - if you had a 2.8 lens with the same coverage it would be too big and heavy to be usable, especially handheld.
Imagine a 2.8 zoom that has to cover 645 or even 67 - that would be huge and uncomfortable to use, DoF would be razor thin - even with a good AF system you'd only get a fraction of your shots in focus.

MF lenses don't need to be superfast. They can be but they don't have to be.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2016, 12:27:16 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Interesting Q&A from a fashion pro on giving up his Phase One system.
« Reply #85 on: February 25, 2016, 07:59:29 am »

I finally had the chance to play with a XF today.

Very nice body, good feel, heavy but not as bad as I feared. The only thing negative about it is the mirror noise that feels pretty slappy and frankly un-refined compared to that of a D810. I don't believe it has any impact on image sharpness, but it came as a bit of a surprise. It may be impossible to avoid this considering the side of the mirror though.

Cheers,
Bernard
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Up