Lager Sensor, Large Pixel, Constant Large Aperture (at least f2.8)

[EinstStein]

Canon successfully educated most photographers that a high end shooting equipment should have a full frame sensor with larger pixel, and the lens should have constant f2.8 aperture. Recently Panasonic etc. enforced this idea by introducing the p&s with f2.0 constant aperture that has Leica brand name on it.

The "real" Leica and Zeiss lenses seemed didn't follow this game. Leica did offer the much praised zoom in this category (70-180mm f2.8 and 35-70mm f2., but they are almost unreachable for people who may have somewhat deep pocket. The availability is so rare, and they require deep gold mine, deep pocket is not enough. So their true work force are in the f4. It is generally acceptible because Leica/Zeiss f4 lenses are considered tend to have more usable wide aperture than other's F2.8.

The newly announce, much expected Leica Mini M falls back even more. The aperture is only f3.5-6.5. I am rather disappointed.

I sometimes laugh at people who is chasing the maximum number of pixel count. Now I am thinking if chasing for the fastest lens and largest sensor also falls into the same myth. Is it real advantage to reduce the maximum aperture in exchange of image quality, using Canon/Nikon/Sony's f2.8 zoom as the base?

[theguywitha645d]

We don't all have the luxury, which apparently you do, of only working under plenty of light. Perhaps you should work in low light for a while and then you can see the benefits of large apertures. BTW, Canon has nothing to do with it. I am assuming by your post you are an amateur. Correlating you limited experience as some kind of universal truth is silly.

[LKaven]

Canon successfully educated most photographers that a high end shooting equipment should have a full frame sensor with larger pixel, and the lens should have constant f2.8 aperture. [...]

I sometimes laugh at people who is chasing the maximum number of pixel count. Now I am thinking if chasing for the fastest lens and largest sensor also falls into the same myth. Is it real advantage to reduce the maximum aperture in exchange of image quality, using Canon/Nikon/Sony's f2.8 zoom as the base?

There is some misinformation in here.  Having more pixels /per unit area of the sensor/ can yield a noise benefit.  Noise is summed in quadrature, giving a noise advantage to more pixels, all else being equal.  The critical point here is /per unit area of the sensor/.  In general, the size of the sensor is the greatest determiner of image quality among sensors from the same generation.  Doing amplification on the sensor, as with the Exmor, also yields some advantages. 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Most lenses perform stopped down to something like f/5.6 to f/11. Larger apertures are generally quite bit softer than optimal aperture. Large apertures also give very short depth of field.

You don't need large aperture lenses for sharpness unless you work under limited light.

Canon does a good job on making cameras that achieve high ISO and lenses that work well fully open.

Best regards
Erik

Canon successfully educated most photographers that a high end shooting equipment should have a full frame sensor with larger pixel, and the lens should have constant f2.8 aperture. Recently Panasonic etc. enforced this idea by introducing the p&s with f2.0 constant aperture that has Leica brand name on it.

The "real" Leica and Zeiss lenses seemed didn't follow this game. Leica did offer the much praised zoom in this category (70-180mm f2.8 and 35-70mm f2., but they are almost unreachable for people who may have somewhat deep pocket. The availability is so rare, and they require deep gold mine, deep pocket is not enough. So their true work force are in the f4. It is generally acceptible because Leica/Zeiss f4 lenses are considered tend to have more usable wide aperture than other's F2.8.

The newly announce, much expected Leica Mini M falls back even more. The aperture is only f3.5-6.5. I am rather disappointed.

I sometimes laugh at people who is chasing the maximum number of pixel count. Now I am thinking if chasing for the fastest lens and largest sensor also falls into the same myth. Is it real advantage to reduce the maximum aperture in exchange of image quality, using Canon/Nikon/Sony's f2.8 zoom as the base?

[KevinA]

Hi,

Most lenses perform stopped down to something like f/5.6 to f/11. Larger apertures are generally quite bit softer than optimal aperture. Large apertures also give very short depth of field.

You don't need large aperture lenses for sharpness unless you work under limited light.

Canon does a good job on making cameras that achieve high ISO and lenses that work well fully open.

Best regards
Erik

Er which Canon fast lenses perform well fully open? none that I have for sure.