Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: marcmccalmont on April 01, 2013, 09:54:06 pm
-
Every time I see a promising smaller camera it either has a fixed focal length lens or its normal zoom range kit lens is poor quality
When will we see a full frame or APS C sensor with a 28-90mm equivalent high quality lens? The only exception is the Fuji XE-1
A little R&D in the compact normal zoom lens area please .....Nikon, Sony etc
Marc
-
I'm guessing that the reasoning for the fixed lenses, is the size factor.
Personally, I have been using The Fuji X100 since it came out. I am however selling it. Extremely quite and light and has decent output quality, but I just want FF and more focal lengths like you do.
Currently I use my backup body, Canon 6D with a Tamron 24-70mm (got it for video) the way I used my X100 in the past. Not by any means light, but it's FF and not to loud (silent mode).
Every time I see a promising smaller camera it either has a fixed focal length lens or its normal zoom range kit lens is poor quality
When will we see a full frame or APS C sensor with a 28-90mm equivalent high quality lens? The only exception is the Fuji XE-1
A little R&D in the compact normal zoom lens area please .....Nikon, Sony etc
Marc
-
Every time I see a promising smaller camera it either has a fixed focal length lens or its normal zoom range kit lens is poor quality
When will we see a full frame or APS C sensor with a 28-90mm equivalent high quality lens? The only exception is the Fuji XE-1.
Unfortunatley, this is mostly a consequence of simple arithmetic: the bulk of a working camera (one with a lens attached!) is dictated far more by the size and weight of the lens than of the sensor, which is far smaller. Two factors that force the lens to get bulky are the maximum effective aperture diameter (focal length divided by aperture ratio) and the extra complications of a zoom lens.
So when camera makers set out to put a big sensor in a small camera, they often play the game of keeping the lens small, which means either keeping the (maximum) focal length shortish or having a high minimum f-stop at the long end (f/5.6 or slower), and often by using a fixed focal length lens.
I applaud Fujifilm for offering a more substantial 55mm and f/4 at the long end of the XE-1 kit zoom, but it does bulk the camera up a bit, once you get beyond the marketing gimmicks of talking about just the size of the body with no lens attached, and only ever showing front-on views to hide the lens bulk. See the side views here:
Fujifilm XE-1 with 18-55/2.8-4 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-e1/4)
-
Every time I see a promising smaller camera it either has a fixed focal length lens or its normal zoom range kit lens is poor quality
When will we see a full frame or APS C sensor with a 28-90mm equivalent high quality lens? The only exception is the Fuji XE-1
A little R&D in the compact normal zoom lens area please .....Nikon, Sony etc
Marc
So buy a Fuji X-E1.
-
So buy a Fuji X-E1.
I probably will but I wish there was a full frame equivalent and I wish there were more choices
Marc :)
-
Unfortunatley, this is mostly a consequence of simple arithmetic: the bulk of a working camera (one with a lens attached!) is dictated far more by the size and weight of the lens than of the sensor, which is far smaller. Two factors that force the lens to get bulky are the maximum effective aperture diameter (focal length divided by aperture ratio) and the extra complications of a zoom lens.
I would think one could design a lens sacrificing distortion for smaller size then remove the distortion in camera?
Marc
-
I would think one could design a lens sacrificing distortion for smaller size then remove the distortion in camera?
Marc
Yes, as long as you didn't want a large maximum aperture. No getting around that. At full frame, the required aperture size is very easy to calculate, and drives the lens diameter. I suppose the smallest large aperture 35mm frame lenses in common use were the Leica and Contax screw mount lenses, and they were pretty big by modern compact camera standards.
Back in 2001 or so, I made a comment here that I expected manufacturers to start building lenses with serious distortions, knowing they could be handled in-camera via s/w. Many potential benefits, including somewhat smaller lenses. I'm sure that my small jpeg-only Panasonic works that way now.
-
I would think one could design a lens sacrificing distortion for smaller size then remove the distortion in camera?
That might allow some downsizing, but does not overcome the simple optical fact that the maximum effective aperture diameter sets a lower limit on the size of the front lens elements, and that for a standard wide-to-telephoto lenses, the need to accommodate light coming in from a wide angle when at the shortest focal length requires the front elements to be considerably larger than the maximum effective aperture diameter. Look at any number of standard zoom lenses to see what I mean, including recent ones that strive to be small, such as ones for Micro Four Thirds. I hope you did look at the side view of that Fujifilm XE-1 with 18-55/2.8-4, for example.
To put it another way: what you ask for is such an obviously desirable thing, especially now with good small cameras all the rage, that if it were currently feasible and cost-effective, it would have been done by now by at least one of the vigorously competing camera companies. Sometimes, you will learn more by trying to understand why multiple successful, competing companies do not yet offer some desirable product or feature: it is more likely to be due to a technical or cost-related reason rather than industry-wide incompetence, as your original subject line seems to suggest.
P. S. If that Fujifilm 18-55/2.8-4 were scaled up to 35mm format, to get a 28-80/2.8-4, all lengths would go up by a factor of 1.5, so the volume and weight of each optical element would go up by a factor of about 3. But it might be a bit smaller and lighter than such a lens for a 35mm format SLR, due to not having the constraints of keeping the rear lens elements away from the mirror.
-
To put it another way: what you ask for is such an obviously desirable thing, especially now with good small cameras all the rage, that if it were currently feasible and cost-effective, it would have been done by now by at least one of the vigorously competing camera companies. Sometimes, you will learn more by trying to understand why multiple successful, competing companies do not yet offer some desirable product or feature: it is more likely to be due to a technical or cost-related reason rather than industry-wide incompetence, as your original subject line seems to suggest.
Not implying incompetence in my original post I just see all these wide angle primes welded to this generation of smaller cameras and frustrated that a normal zoom isn't attached say 28-90 f4.0?
Marc
-
Not implying incompetence in my original post ...
I was referring to the accusation in your original subject line
"they just don't get it",
your plea in the original post for
"A little R&D in the compact normal zoom lens area please"
and your subsequent claim that
"I would think one could design a lens sacrificing distortion for smaller size then remove the distortion in camera?"
All of these suggest that you believe that the lenses that you (and I!) want are feasible, and are not available mainly due to lack of R&D effort and/or misjudgment of what customers want, which is what I meant by "incompetence".
I am suggesting instead that a number of camera makers do "get it" and are striving to produce standard zoom lenses with various balances between speed and compactness, but that there are technical limits at work. Given the inevitable size/speed trade-offs, it is good that at least we are starting to see options like f/2.8-4 in addition to f/3.5-5.6 in "APS-C" format, although still the only way to get different size/speed choices for standard zooms in a single system is with Micro Four Thirds.
P. S. Whatever happened to intermediate speed/size/cost options like the f/2.8-3.5 4x zooms and f/2.8-4 5x zoom offered for Four Thirds SLR's? Such designs should even be easier once free of the SLR mirror.
-
Canon made a very sharp kit zoom for Canon EOS-M.
Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM (http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-m/18-55mm-stm.htm)
-
I probably will but I wish there was a full frame equivalent and I wish there were more choices
Marc :)
A few years ago we had zero choices, so in my mind things are getting pretty exciting.
-
A few years ago we had zero choices, so in my mind things are getting pretty exciting.
I just get frustrated every time I see another "neat" smallish camera come out with improved IQ and a wide prime welded to it!
I'm a "normal zoom" kind of guy, just wish more effort was put into quality normal zooms on these more compact cameras
Marc
-
Hi,
I have a Sony RX100, it is pocketable and quite good, but not FX or even APS-C. The zoom is pretty good in the short end but corners are "ouch" at the long end.
Sony is rumored to come out with a "Zeiss" 16-70 for the NEX.
You can use some full frame lenses with the Metabones "Speed Booster", they are made for NEX, FUJI-X and 4/3.
Best regards
Erik
I just get frustrated every time I see another "neat" smallish camera come out with improved IQ and a wide prime welded to it!
I'm a "normal zoom" kind of guy, just wish more effort was put into quality normal zooms on these more compact cameras
Marc
-
Hello,
I have just upgraded my old Fuji X10 to the new Fuji X20 and the improvements are great.
Marc you should try one out it a great little camera.
Cheers
Simon
-
I just get frustrated every time I see another "neat" smallish camera come out with improved IQ and a wide prime welded to it!
I'm a "normal zoom" kind of guy, just wish more effort was put into quality normal zooms on these more compact cameras
Marc
I understand your point.
I've spent a fair bit of time looking for decent zooms for M43 (on photozone), and virtually all the zooms have pretty bad distortion (on some it's worse than pretty bad). It can be corrected in the camera, but only in JPEG files, not RAW, and of course an in-camera correction comes with its own problems when the image is stretched and/or compressed to remove barrel and pincushion distortion.
And yes, the lenses get pretty large.
OTOH, I think that they do get it - it gets increasingly harder to remove distortion as the lens gets smaller.
Glenn
-
Try a Sigma DP2M, DP1M and/or DP3M. No other compact cameras come close in terms of image quality, provided you can live with fairly poor high ISO quality and quirky software.
-
I just get frustrated every time I see another "neat" smallish camera come out with improved IQ and a wide prime welded to it!
I'm a "normal zoom" kind of guy, just wish more effort was put into quality normal zooms on these more compact cameras
Marc
Cool, so get the Fuji and the 35/1.4 normal lens. I got to play with one last week and it's quite a capable little camera. As a bonus, you can stick a wide angle lens in your pocket just in case.
-
Marc,
I am with you on this: wanting more options for compact lens-camera kits with good quality normal zooms and a sensor significantly bigger than the traditional 2/3" or smaller of compact cameras.
I'm a "normal zoom" kind of guy, just wish more effort was put into quality normal zooms on these more compact cameras
When will we see a full frame or APS C sensor with a 28-90mm equivalent high quality lens?
Some people here seemed to have mis-read what you are hoping for, given all the recommendations of prime lenses ("Fuji and the 35/1.4 normal lens"), cameras with permanently attached prime lenses ("Sigma DP2M, DP1M and/or DP3M") and cameras with 2/3" sensors ("Fujifilm X20"). Or non-existent lenses ("Sony is rumored to ...").
I am actually satisfied with the Olympus 12-50 on my E-M5, despite the complaints about distortion --- and I believe that RAW files can be distortion corrected, but it requires using the Olympus Master software for that stage of the processing. There is one other high quality normal zoom around for the new compact systems: the Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 for mFT, which is fairly light at 305g, but expensive ($1300) and not so compact (67.6mm diameter, 73.8mm long). And of course it is a bit smaller than "APS-C" size: 20% smaller than Canon's APS-C, 25% smaller than Sony-Nikon-Pentax "APS-C", but the extra lens speed more than compensates.
-
There is one other high quality normal zoom around for the new compact systems: the Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 for mFT, which is fairly light at 305g, but expensive ($1300) and not so compact (67.6mm diameter, 73.8mm long). And of course it is a bit smaller than "APS-C" size: 20% smaller than Canon's APS-C, 25% smaller than Sony-Nikon-Pentax "APS-C", but the extra lens speed more than compensates.
I looked at the photozone review of this lens. A direct quote from their review:
That said it is still interesting to look a bit behind the scenes by using an "unsupported" RAW converter like e.g. RAW Therapee. This converter reveals the native barrel distortion level of about 5.8% at 12mm. This is excessive - and as such it is highly disappointing for such a lens. Please note that the correction of such an amount of distortion is lossy due to the required image stretching and interpolations.
I had been looking for a zoom lens for this body, but so far none have turned up that matches (for example), my Canon 17-55. I will keep looking and hoping.
Glenn
-
Sony is rumored to come out with a "Zeiss" 16-70 for the NEX.
Yes I have been waiting a year for Sony's "high quality normal zoom" listed in their NEX road map
the NEX 6 + HQ normal zoom would fit my requirements!
Marc
-
Some people here seemed to have mis-read what you are hoping for, given all the recommendations of prime lenses ("Fuji and the 35/1.4 normal lens"),
Guilty. I read too quickly and thought he said "normal lens" -- missed the "zoom" part. Mea culpa.
-
I looked at the photozone review of this lens. A direct quote from their review:
That said it is still interesting to look a bit behind the scenes by using an "unsupported" RAW converter like e.g. RAW Therapee. This converter reveals the native barrel distortion level of about 5.8% at 12mm. This is excessive ...
Which suggests that the lens should be used according to the manufacturer's instructions. mFT lens compactness is achieved in part by handling distortion with software correction in addition to "hardware" correction, with the manufacturers' stated intention being to the apply software distortion correction: either in-camera, or with the provided RAW conversion software, or in software like Lightroom or ACR, which can do it using the lens profile information that Olympus and Panasonic include in their raw files. Photozone seems aware of the latter, by its use of a non-mainstream converter specifically to avoid those corrections.
As to this:
... in-camera correction comes with its own problems when the image is stretched and/or compressed to remove barrel and pincushion distortion.
to the extent that this is a problem, one should measure and assess the degree of _that_ problem, by looking at files that have been converted in the intended way, with correction. Otherwise, what photozone says is a bit like complaining about food poisoning after ignoring the label warning people not to eat something raw.
-
Hi,
I think it is quite OK to fix correctable problems in software. Hasselblad also does it. Vendors should publish data for automatic control of distortion. I don't know if Sigma does this, but they supply correction tables for all their lenses to Adobe. This can be be done at the design level.
Best regards
Erik
Which suggests that the lens should be used according to the manufacturer's instructions. mFT lens compactness is achieved in part by handling distortion with software correction in addition to "hardware" correction, with the manufacturers' stated intention being to the apply software distortion correction: either in-camera, or with the provided RAW conversion software, or in software like Lightroom or ACR, which can do it using the lens profile information that Olympus and Panasonic include in their raw files. Photozone seems aware of the latter, by its use of a non-mainstream converter specifically to avoid those corrections.
As to this:to the extent that this is a problem, one should measure and assess the degree of _that_ problem, by looking at files that have been converted in the intended way, with correction. Otherwise, what photozone says is a bit like complaining about food poisoning after ignoring the label warning people not to eat something raw.
-
Vendors should publish data for automatic control of distortion. I don't know if Sigma does this, but they supply correction tables for all their lenses to Adobe.
From what I have read, Olympus and Panasonic "publish" this information for Micro Four Thirds lenses in a sense: this data is included in the raw file in a format that at least Adobe knows how to use, which is why Adobe can do distortion correction in Lightroom and ACR without having any profiles listed for any Olympus or Panasonic lenses. Note the strange absence of those two brands from the list of lens profiles, which on the other hand has profiles for every other significant lens brand, and even multiple iPhone models:
http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/lens-profile-support-lightroom-4.html
I not know if this is also done with third party m4/3 lenses like those from Sigma: ideally this would be part of the m4/3 standard and a requirement for m4/3 badging of a lens.
-
Not sure what you term as a small camera Marc but I recently bought a Panasonic FZ 200 with a consistent F2.8 from 25mm to 600mm! Certainly not a pocket camera but I have been surprised to how good it is. I'm really surprised at the image quality I can get from it. But my favourite camera is the Canon G12. I don't print many photos these days but I would have no drama ordering up to a 12 x 18 inch photos from either camera. The poor 5D11 does not get to go on too many walks these days :'(.