[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 38 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks Make sure to check your spam box!



news:
Panasonic 10-25mm f/1.7
e-m5 iii announcement soon
panasonic g85 announcement soon
pen-f discontinued
e-m1x is good but big

New catalogue:
https://www.four-thirds.org/en/common/pdf/catalog2019_en.pdf

Discuss the system. Keep bitching to the minimum.
>>
>>3454782
>Panasonic 10-25mm f/1.7
f/3.4 equivalent, lmao
>>
new e-m5 ii for $900 including the 18 - 150, worth or no?
>>
>>3454917
No idea which lens you're talking about. It's worth looking for what you can get gx9 and similar lens.
>>
>>3454902

Go home Northrup, you're drunk.
>>
>>3455020
I want to see Tony have an autistic fit over sensor size and light transmission while he's forced to measure the exposure for two shots with a dedicated light meter
>>
>>3455033
You’ve misunderstood the point he was making.

You’re arguing “f/X always hits the sensor with the same amount of light per unit area regardless of format”

He’s arguing “f/X on a crop camera is equivalent to f/X*crop on full frame in terms of the look you can get with it”

It’s exactly like the difference between X focal length and X*crop focal length equivalency. No one’s saying that the focal length is actually 1.5 times different on a crop camera with the same lens. We’re just saying that you need to shoot it as if it were that 1.5 times longer lens. In the exact same way, if you want to shoot in the same light with the same depth of field and same amount of noise, you’ll need an aperture 1.5 times faster than on a full frame camera to get it.
>>
>>3455050
Light meters aren't witchcraft, Tony, use one and accept that you're wrong about transmission
>>
File: ISO-range-to-latitude.jpg (230 KB, 1280x720)
230 KB
230 KB JPG
Does something like this exists for gh5s?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8hHFt3ChZ8

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72
Vertical Resolution72
Image Created2018:09:11 15:28:46
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1280
Image Height720
>>
>>3455067
Have you ever learned how to read?
>>
>>3455095
Oh, yeah. Only looking something like that chart. It's also dual iso cam. I'm sot sure they're even releasing them.
>>
>>3454782
>pen-f discontinued
Why? I like my pen-f. My only issue with it is that there is no weather seal
>>
>>3455165
Discontinued just means it's not being made anymore, they could have crates of them in storage. But it is puzzling news. It's a great, if maybe slightly overpriced cam in the current market. Could be a successors is already being produced.
>>
>>3454782
What will Olympus do when Panasonic pulls out completely?
>>
>>3455050
So you're now claiming that transmission is affected by working distance?
>>
File: panasonic_3.jpg (210 KB, 1500x1500)
210 KB
210 KB JPG
First pics of G90 - G85 successor apparently.
20mp sensor.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGoogle
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1500
Image Height1500
>>
>>3454782
I'd absolutely love to have a G9 and a 100-400mm leica lens
>>
File: IMG_5467.jpg (1.16 MB, 2694x2433)
1.16 MB
1.16 MB JPG
Just joined the M43 race.
I'm interested in this 10-25mm but it does look huge. Any similar lenses which are smaller?
>>
just got a gx85 yesterday and I love it
gonna go out to shoot today
>>
>>3459125
Does anybody know if this lens is weather proof?
>>
If I put a 28mm f2.8 lens on my M43 camera, does that equal a f0.9 aperture 56mm lens?
>>
>>3459125
That's not 10-25, it's 25mm prime. You've few pancake zoom around that range. Panasonic 12-32mm, olympus 14-42mm and panasonic 14-42mm. There are also few pancake primes. panasonic 14mm f2.5, and panasonic 20mm, samyang 7.5mm, and probably something else.
>>
>>3459155
Sorry, I meant the 10-25mm mentioned in the OP. Thanks for your suggestions, I'll take a look.
>>
>>3459156
Oh, don't look at those pancakes then. I only mentioned them because I thought you're looking as small lenses. They're not very high quality lenses, with maybe few primes as an exception.
>>
>>3454902
>Muh background blur
Spotted the garbage photog.
>>
I just bought e-m10 mark iii as my first 'real' camera. Is it good? How is the image quality? Initially was aiming to get D5600, but got persuaded to Olympus by the old guy running the store. Olympus was a cheaper choice as well.
>>
File: image.jpg (1.97 MB, 2000x1500)
1.97 MB
1.97 MB JPG
Love this lens.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2000
Image Height1500
>>
>>3459201
Yea it’s “good”. Now go outside and shoot.
>>
>>3455232
>So you're now claiming that transmission is affected by working distance?
No, of course not. I'm not talking about light transmission at all. At a given f/number, any lens transmits the same amount of light regardless of focal length or format (give or take, because t/stops, but that's not relevant to this argument).

I'm talking about "Ability to shoot in low light" and "depth of field". I.e., the reasons you would WANT a wider aperture.

An f/1.7 lens on a m4/3 camera transmits the same amount of light per unit area as an f/1.7 lens on crop or an f/1.7 lens on full frame.

But the f/1.7 lens on m4/3 does not give you the same ability to shoot in low light as the f/1.7 lens on the larger formats, because the larger formats have less noise at higher ISOs. So every step up in ISO that the larger format gives you can be matched with a step down in aperture.

So yeah, if you shoot f/1.7 at ISO 6400 on m4/3 and FF, you'll get the same exposure, but the m4/3 will have as much noise as the FF at ISO 1600. If you want to match the amount of noise, you'd need to drop the ISO down two stops, and that means you'd need an aperture two stops wider (keeping shutter speed the same).

(Again, more or less--m4/3 sensors tend to do a little better than a full two-stop drop in noise performance, so it's not exact. But it's a decent enough approximation for the argument)

And conveniently, depth of field scales the same with crop factor. I hope I don't have to justify that one, too, but I can do so if you really need me to.

So in terms of LOW LIGHT SHOOTING ABILITY (but NOT actual light transmission; i.e., the ability to shoot in a given amount of light with a given noisiness in your image) and DEPTH OF FIELD, a m4/3 system is roughly equivalent to a full frame system with a lens 2x slower.
>>
>>3459152
>If I put a 28mm f2.8 lens on my M43 camera, does that equal a f0.9 aperture 56mm lens?
No, it's equivalent to a 56mm f/5.6 on full frame.
>>
>>3459269
But F2 on my M43 lens is smaller than F2 on my full frame camera.....

Surely it's inverse?
>>
>>3459273
>But F2 on my M43 lens is smaller than F2 on my full frame camera.....
I think you're confused about what an f/number really is.

It represents the ratio of the focal length (f) to the physical diameter of the lens opening. So if you have a 100mm lens with a 50mm-diameter entrance pupil, that's an f/2 lens. If you have a 50mm lens with a 25mm-diameter entrance pupil, that's also an f/2 lens. The point of doing it that way is that the amount of light that comes through both of those f/2 lenses is the same, so it means you can just think "f/2" when doing your exposure calculation instead of caring about the actual focal length of your lens and the size of its entrance pupil.

(Since it's a ratio, it also means that the lower f/number is a larger entrance pupil and lets in more light. So f/2 lets in more light than f/2.8 or f/4 or f/5.6)

Regardless of what it's mounted on, the aperture (and therefore the amount of light it throws at your sensor) doesn't change. For that matter, neither does the focal length. So when you mount a 28mm f/2.8 on your m4/3 camera, it's still a 28mm f/2.8. Since the sensor is smaller, though, it takes a smaller crop of the image projected by the lens, which is why we say it's "equivalent" to a 56mm lens--you get the same field of view with a 28mm on m4/3 as you would with a 56mm on full frame.

The aperture equivalency is a little more complicated, but one thing to be clear about is that the amount of light per unit area is going to be the same, so the f/2.8 is still f/2.8. But the depth of field is going to be equivalent to f/5.6 because of how you use it--if you stood in the same spot with a 28/2.8 on FF and a 28/2.8 on m4/3 and took a picture, they'd have the same depth of field, but you don't stand in the same spot with the different formats--you'll move back to where you'd shoot with a 56mm, and that will give you a wider depth of field, equivalent to f/5.6.
>>
>>3459298
Thanks. Nicely said.
>>
>>3459298
>if you stood in the same spot with a 28/2.8 on FF and a 28/2.8 on m4/3 and took a picture, they'd have the same depth of field, but you don't stand in the same spot with the different formats--you'll move back to where you'd shoot with a 56mm, and that will give you a wider depth of field, equivalent to f/5.6.

I used to think that too, but it's actually wrong. In fact the 2 factors influencing DoF are circle of confusion and resolution. Distance affects DoF too, but you can try it yourself: shoot with the same lens from the same spot 2 times and crop on shot on sensor and the other in post. The shot from the whole sensor cropped in post will have a significant shallower DoF.
CoC is easily understandable if you see it as a "dynamic range for sharp und blurred areas". The smaller the sensor is the smaller the possible difference between what is sharp and what is blurred.
Unless the resolution is higher again! This way you understand that DoF is dependant on the ratio of CoC to resolution.
>>
>>3459396
Basically what you're saying is "When you blow things up, it's more obvious when they're out of focus". Which is true.

I suppose what I should've said is that if you have a shot from FF and m4/3 with the same lens and same aperture from the same distance and blow the FF show up at twice the size of the m4/3, they'll have the same DoF.

But my post was already a big wall of text, so I didn't want to get into the concept of CoC, especially when that's somewhat tangential to the point I was making.

My point was that, whether you're cropping the scene by using a smaller sensor or cropping the scene by using the crop tool from a larger sensor later, the optical image that hit the sensor is the same.

Also,
> the 2 factors influencing DoF are circle of confusion and resolution
this is misleading since you didn't specify that those are the two factors that influence DoF in the very specific case where the aperture, focal length, and camera-to-subject distance are the same. Which is what we were discussing, but if you're gonna get pedantic with me I'm gonna get pedantic right back at you.
>>
The whole >muh DoF thing is moronic. 20mm f1.7 is like a 40mm f3.5 which is pretty fast seeing as most people don't shoot it wide open anyway. f4 is the same as f8 and tons of good pictures were taken at f8.

Also I have 2 different f0.95s, an f1.1, and a 75mm f1.8. One of the most popular lenses for every full frame system is the 70-200 f2.8 (and the f4 version) and I can do 100mm f2.2 and 150mm f3.5 equivs, which is pretty much the same DoF you would get from the 70-200 anyway.

Also, if I wanted muh bokeh I'd just use my telephoto on my medium format.
>>
File: image.jpg (284 KB, 1400x788)
284 KB
284 KB JPG
Made up my mind on my next camera.
Black or silver?? I feel that silver looks more vintage and less intimidating on the street but the black is more sexy...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1400
Image Height788
>>
>>3459559
Get a X100F instead..Olympus Pen is a failed reskinned EM5 MK2 with a jpeg toy camera knob (The Em5 Mk ii is superior and cheaper)
>>
>>3459597
Yeah, get a point and shoot instead of a system cam...

Pen F's are great, they're currently between em5 and em1. It's just different design, really. Personally I'd go for black one, since most of the lenses are only black, but that's just fashion thing.
>>
PL 42.5/1.2 Nocticron (native) or Voigt 40mm/1.2 Nokton (adapted)?
>>
>>3459597
I had an X100F. I want native 50mm focal length without a dumb converter.

>>3459609
Why would I get a point and shoot? You’re advising against M4/3s?
>>
>>3459609
Are you implying the X100F is a point and shoot and Nu Pen F is not? haha Seriously..Pen F's are a toy the EM5 mk2 is a better camera..Pen F is just another rangefinder in skin only and hiked up price just for aesthetics.
>>
>>3461367
Obviously it isn't rangefinder. It's regular mirrorless. And x100 is regular fixed lenses point and shoot. That's just nomenclature. Tech is pretty much the same, only real difference is that one can change lenses and the other can't.
>>
Question fellas.

I previously used an a6000 until I upgraded to a7ii last October. I also used a Jupiter 3 50mm/1.4 with an adaptor for m mount.

I dont use the lens anymore, but when I was on the aps-c a6000, was it a true 50mm? Or was it a 50mm x the crop factor? I never really looked into it and figured you guys might know.
>>
>>3461683
E mount*
>>
>>3461683
Does the crop tool in MS Paint change the focal length an image was taken at when you use it?
>>
We 8K vid now!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=42&v=KSMD0mEC2vU
>>
>>3463373
https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/04/08/we-take-sharps-upcoming-8k-micro-four-thirds-camera-for-a-spin/

Highlights:
>33mp sensor!
>Sensor made by Sharp!

Competition for bmpc4k, panasonic, nikon z6, and sony s vid oriented cams. Possibly also a new player on sensor market.
>>
>>3461683
>when I was on the aps-c a6000, was it a true 50mm? Or was it a 50mm x the crop factor?
Yes, it was a true 50mm.

But it gave you the same field of view and perspective as a 75mm would on a full frame camera. Does that answer your question?
>>
>>3463401
Yes very thank
>>
File: _1000270.jpg (672 KB, 1333x1000)
672 KB
672 KB JPG
I just bought a GX9 to replace my old GX7 with a broken knob. The extra mégapickles really make a difference for cropping.
At the same time, I found an almost new Panasonic Leica 12-60 mm 2.8-4.0. I used to be a prime lens guy but the quality and the versatility of this gem is really a game changer. I'm having a lot of fun with it.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePanasonic
Camera ModelDC-GX9
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.2 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.9
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)72 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:04:16 12:37:25
Exposure Time1/200 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/4.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length36.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
Can someone explain to me why all M43 lenses are more than full frame Canon EF lenses
I was going to grab a m43 camera from a friend that dont use it for cheap until i seen the price of lenses
>>
>>3465289
>explain to me why all M43 lenses are more than full frame Canon EF lenses
Can you give some example m43 lenses that are more expensive than their EF equivalents?
>>
File: Untitled.png (181 KB, 1042x815)
181 KB
181 KB PNG
>>3465293
pretty much all of these
given i dont know what the L series equivalent is for M43 so i might be way off but at a quick glance for stabilized zooms I was rather shocked at the prices
I was expecting them to be cheaper because smaller glass
>>
>>3465297
You're only looking at high end first party lenses. Mid range and Sigmas and Samyangs are considerably cheaper. Comparing similar quality there's not much between them. In some areas like wide zooms, and low to mid end primes canon will be cheaper, and in other like macro and long telephoto m43 will be cheaper.
>>
File: trt.jpg (231 KB, 1704x372)
231 KB
231 KB JPG
>>3465297
I agree that they should be cheaper. Olympuses especially. Most of them aren't even stabilized. But you can find some gems for cheap in the system as well, and you've healthy second hand market.
>>
>>3465423
Yep, second hand market is everything since the prices for new are clearly exaggerated if you don't buy on grey market.
>>
I have a G6 with the 14-42 kit.
Should I get a Helios 44-2 as my first prime? It's an 58mm/2, but it's cheap and abundant absolutely everywhere where I live, covers a focal range I don't have and after having to work @116mm equivalent, I'll probably learn to love my kit lens to hell and back.
It's not even a money thing, it's more about accessibility and the 'embracing limitations' meme.
Opinions?
>>
>>3466200
Yeah, there's really no reason *not* to get a cheap 50(eight) like that. If you don't like it, you're out what, twenty bucks?
>>
>>3465297
many of the olympus lenses are top of the line like the 12mm f/2, the 17mm f/1.2 or even the 60mm macro. ibis isn't that much of a problem because the olympus cameras unironically have the best IBIS in the world.
but you are right, some prices are insane. the 12-200 is over 1000
>>
Does a decent wide lens exist for ~$200?
>>
>>3459204

Autofocus is so fucking slow on it though. The Oly 25mm f1.8 is lightening fast focus and better optically. I still use the 20mm when I need absolute smallest package necessary, but the 25mm is a superior lens if you don't need concealability.
>>
File: 1555190567494.png (975 KB, 1932x973)
975 KB
975 KB PNG
>>3466917
Okay, now I'm looking between two:
>Panasonic 25mm 1.7f
>Olympus 17mm 2.8f
This will be for video. Is there "too wide" for interiors that can't be fixed by getting closer to my subject(s)?
>>
>>3459267
>Based on my completely arbitrary metric, m43 cameras are over 9000% shittier than full frame
Okay there sparky. We get it, you are butthurt that some people like things you don't like. That must be very stressful for you, but I promise the pain will go away if you just fuck off with your bullshit.
>>
>>3467320
If that's what you got from my post, you completely misread it from top to bottom.

I have no problem with people shooting m4/3. I own an m4/3 camera myself.
>>
>>3467004
25mm isn't wide on m43. It'll give you same fov as 50mm ff. 17m will be wider, but it's still not classic ultra wide. If you shoot bmpc, you'll have even higher crop ratios.

Some more wides around 200. panasonic 14mm f/2.5, rokinon/samyang f/3.5, panasonic 20mm, meike 12mm f/2.8, meike 6.5 f/2, samyang 12mm f/2, and cheapest quality zoom; panasonic 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6. Samyangs and Meikes are manual focus
>>
>>3467673
>rokinon/samyang 7.5mm f/3.5
>>
File: EM10 Mark II.jpg (529 KB, 3000x2088)
529 KB
529 KB JPG
About to buy an EM10 Mark II, what bag do you guys use?
The only thing i find on youtube is "what's in my bag" listed about 1000x.
Any companies i should steer clear of?
I'm going for the II R version of the 14-42mm lense.
Thx
>pic stolen from Gordon's website

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3467735
Domke makes really nice bags. I use an f2, which is probably way, way overkill for any m43 system, but I assume they make smaller bags too.
>>
>>3467738
will check it out thanks for the recommendation.
Don't forget to put water and snacks in empty spots.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.