Have you ever seen such a tiny lens? Full Frame chads are just so lucky.
How big is a 23mm f1.0 crop lens?
>>3797693Pretty fucking huge which is why I don't understand why you would call this thing 'tiny'
>>379769324 mm f/2.8 is pretty damn small though[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareGoogleImage-Specific Properties:Image Width1600Image Height1066
>>3797702The cameras are huge though. Don't really see the point of compacts on DSLRs
>>3797702I don't know of any 35mm f4 lenses for full frame to do a direct comparison, but the 35mm 2.8 similarly tiny, but weighs less than a third of that canon.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATIONCamera ModelE-M1MarkIICamera SoftwareVersion 3.1PhotographerMerkoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution350 dpiVertical Resolution350 dpiImage Created2019:09:17 18:30:27Exposure Time1/10 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length62.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1022Image Height663RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>3797712Canons compact bodies with a pancake are pretty damn small.
>>3797726>Canons compact bodies with a pancake are pretty damn small.Even with a chonky boy like the 5D line, sticking a 40/2.8 pancake on it makes it feel a lot smaller than something like a 24-105 or even just a 50/1.4.
gearfags should kill themself
Aperture ring, that size, and FF? I want to switch from Z6. Someone talk me out of it. The 1.8 lenses are so fucking big
>>3797676You mean like what Sigma has?
>>3797781Looks weird with a big lens tho
>>3797783Looks nice with a grip though
>>3797783Canon compact DSLR with 800 mm f/8 catadioptic lens looks weird as well.That thing had 105 mm filter threads.>>3797746One big issue with too small bodies like some mirrorless cameras have is that the ergonomics suffer a lot.>no grip >fewer physical controlls>less mass*radius^2 (rotational inertia) to stabilize the camera
>>3797787>the ergonomics suffer a lotI find them damned uncomfortable, I prefer a gripped 5D4 with chunky zoom lenses. Anything less is for sissies.
>>3797676I don't understand why left-eyed people would ever buy a rangefinder style camera like that.
>>3797676Compared to the existing options which are the Sony Zeiss 35 f/1.4, the Sigma 35 f/1.4, and the Samyang 35 f/1.4, it's fucking tiny. It's a great lens and I'm gonna get one.
>>3797787Hold the lens pussy boy. Rotational inertia.>>3797783Should see mine with the 100-400 attached
>>3797833He's not entirely wrong though. It's important for a camera to handle properly, though I feel that it differs between photographers to an extent. I'd hate to shoot my heavy ass 80-200 Nikkor zoom on a very compact mirrorless body.
You got nothing on old rangefinder lenses.Left to rightVoigtlander 21mm f/4Zorki 1 with a collapsible Industar 50mm f/3.5Canon LTM 50mm f/1.4 (yes 1.4)for comparison Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/1.4[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 80DCamera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.8Firmware VersionFirmware Version 1.0.2Lens NameEF-S24mm f/2.8 STMImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2021:01:13 23:11:51Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityLens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length24.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width6000Image Height4000RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeISO Speed RatingAutoSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeAI FocusDrive ModeUnknownFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalColor Matrix135Color Temperature5200 KWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed352
>>3797863>Hold the lens pussy boy. Rotational inertia.Can't do that with a pancake and low rotational inertia would still be an issue.
>>3797781>>3797786Sigma's aperture rings have a big flaw actually.<- They always jump in big 1/3 steps even though you set it to click-less and try to adjust smoothly.Sigma is still at the beginner stage where they fumble around with the fly-by-wire, and can't quite get it precise enough.These are areas where Sony and Canon are a bit more thoughtful.
>>3797876Then you're holding your camera wrong.The weight should always be on the left hand, which should be only under the lens on a large lens like that, and the smaller mirrorless body on the end of the lever and fulcrum you've made will have much less momentum and instability.
Just preordered my 35GM. I've wanted the Sigma 1.2, but every review says the same thing about it not really being a true 1.2 and it being closer to 37mm
>>3798026>not really being a true 1.2It is a true F1,2.It's just fucking huge and heavy. And its aperture ring is less granular than the GM. That's about the only two bad things about it.
>>3798024>and the smaller mirrorless body on the end of the lever and fulcrum you've madeNo no no, I want something hefty that I can get a good form grip on for when I swing it at the heads of pompous pillocks like you. Some girly mirrorless body is only likely to result in a bit of bruising whereas a studly, gripped DSLR could invest you with serious concussion.When I am out and about with my camera it is in my hand at all times, it is only actually jammed against my head for the act of pressing the shutter button for a very small percentage of that time. For the rest of the time I want something I can wrap my manly hands around, not something I have to carry in a handbag or with a pair of fucking tweezers.But to each their own.
>>3798061>I want something hefty that I can get a good form grip ontry some fat cocks for a change
>>3798064>try some fat cocks for a changeGot one of my own, thanks, long as well
>>3798061Still, regardless of body type, or what you're doing with the camera, you're supposed to be holding it by the lens if it's a large lens.And why aren't you using a strap? You just hold it like a women clutch purse? Are you gay lad?>Manly hands>Claiming of weight imbalances in a small electronic goodSomething doesn't add up.
>>3797961My understanding of the lenses is that they were designed with the Sigma fp in mind, which only has one dial, meaning that if you set the camera into M, you'd need to use the dial for SS and the aperture ring on the lens. I'd assume things are different in A and S modes, with the issue being nonexistent in P.I have a Sigma lens on a different system, and it doesn't feature an aperture ring, with full control being done from 2 dials on the camera.
>>3798069You misunderstand what that post refers to.A manual lens with mechanical aperture have intinite aperture steps, allowing you to make smooth changes to the aperture.A good fly-by-wire aperture ring tries to emulate these infinite small steps by using small enough jumps in aperture.A bad fly-by-wire ring (such as the Sigma one) makes huge jumpy 1/3 steps no matter how carefully and smoothly you adjust the ring.
>>3798067>you're supposed to be holding it by the lensThat is stupid and impractical. Nobody walks around carrying their camera by the lens unless the lens is so big it has its own handle like that green Sigma thing>And why aren't you using a strap?I do when I need both hands to go for a piss. When not micturating I have a very nice grip which enables me to efficiently carry the camera and promptly bring it to my eye should the need arise. Funnily enough it was designed for that very purpose.
>>3798072>Doubling down on holding a camera with right handYou know how I know you don't know the first thing about photography? Imagine seeing someone holding a pen with a closed fist grip wrapped round a pen and claiming they're a writer.>Nobody holds their camera by the lensExcept professional photographers, pic related.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)Image-Specific Properties:Color Space InformationsRGB
>>3798075More like that, you steaming great pudding. Except I'm not an Italian wedding photographer that is just an example. I'm much better looking and not such a poser[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5D Mark IVCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Windows)PhotographerFILIPPO CIAMPOLIMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image Width6720Image Height4480Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2019:07:22 10:50:58Exposure Time1/2500 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating125Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias-1/3 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length120.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1680Image Height1120RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>3797892But then again you'd have to shoot a rangefinder
>>37980691/3rd steps are really bad.
>>3798085only faggots hold their camera like that.
>>3798070>>3798089I've used vintage lenses from approx 70s & 80s. And the 1/3 stop stuff seemed to normal to me. I was under the impression that the precise selection was more as a result of auto-aperture in modern lenses, with the majority of modern manual lenses featuring stops, and smooth movement being limited to lenses targeted at videographers, sometimes with T stops being given in addition to F stops.I think it's Kowa who make lenses that have 1/3 stop f numbers, and smooth t stop numbers, and you switch between them by a button.
>>3798113Technically for photography it's hardly an issue but with modern techniques there's no real excuse for having 1/3rd stops.
>>3798113>I think it's Kowa who make lenses that have 1/3 stop f numbers, and smooth t stop numbers, and you switch between them by a button.Have a look at the recent mirrorless art prime lenses from Sigma.Because that's exactly what they have now.But it's just not as good as Sony, Zeiss, Voigtlander options.(Some of these are real mechanical apertures)
>>3798097Is that the best you can come up with?
>>3798142I came up your dad and even I'm not a big enough faggot to hold my camera like that
>>3798061>I want something hefty that I can get a good form grip on for when I swing it at the heads of pompous pillocks like you.how old are you, 12?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image Width680Image Height511Pixel CompositionUnknownImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2011:11:10 16:33:35Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width680Image Height511
>>3798085>I'm much better lookingYou write like a sweaty neckbeard with delusions of grandeur.
>>3797961>They always jump in big 1/3 steps>>3798070>makes huge jumpy 1/3 steps>>3798124>with modern techniques there's no real excuse for having 1/3rd stops.Are you mad lads baiting or have you actually gone insane?1/3rd of a stop is "huge jump"? Your ISO is calibrated to within 1/3rd of a stop. In older cameras, the spec for the shutter speeds was accuracy to within 1/3rd of a stop when the leave the factory. What exactly do you think you'll be getting with smaller increments?Even in the film days intermediate values were used rarely, maybe sometimes when shooting slide. And by intermediate I mean half stops, let alone less than 1/3rd of a stop. So rare was their use in fact, that people complained that Zeiss rf lenses had third stops instead of half stops. Imagine complaining that 1/3rd of a stop ain't enough.
>>3798179It makes a difference for video work.Of course, for photography it's irrelevant. But it's something that is worth noting since these lenses are multipurpose.
>>3798232For what like manual fades etc. or just exposure?I guess the main issue is that it's a photography lens and not a cine one, that clickless aperture option on modern photo lenses is a recent feature.Does it actually make that much difference even in video though? I mean even when adjusting exposure and you need to go up or down 2+ stops in a second or two, aperture changes too quickly to notice third stops.A bigger issue would be how accurate/smooth is the whole drive-by-wire system.
>>3798061after all, the camera IS an extension of your phallus
>>3798242>Does it actually make that much difference even in video though?This is the level of granularity I aim for: https://youtu.be/-UKR8DZ7a8Y?t=56Anothing is when you have a high precision ND system like that one, you really need a mechanical aperture to play along with it as well.Or some by-wire lens that can get close to it.>that clickless aperture option on modern photo lenses is a recent feature.Recent for Sigma's lenses, but not for the native e-mounts.
>>3797676God, I cant stand that shill. Which brand has the worst youtube shills?
>>3798252WHAT'S UP HYBRID SHOOTERS
>>3798148Necrophiliac too, eh?
>>3797676It's smaller than similar DSLR lenses.