Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Damien_Demolder, Jul 6, 2008.
I see the Oly compact on that link passed the 1.5m drop test.....so has my Casio compact...twice (once at a reasonable speed too!)
I was thinking about the SW1030 but read varied reviews on it, some not very complimentary. I wanted it for snorkelling
An Oly review that wasn't complimentary?.....how dare they
(but aye, have looked at SW-somethings with interest myself)
I think it is of great importance for several reasons - the low light capability and the wide angle capabilities are probably the biggest that come to mind.
It's never been easy creating wide angle lenses for smaller format cameras, and FF will hopefully allow landscape photographers to get better shots than on APSC.
The light gathering capabilities is something else - pushing APS C sensors up in ISO is ok, but a bigger sensor makes a lot of sense.
I haven't tried a ff yet - I anticipated they would be affordable within a couple of years, so haven't even got a pro level DSLR yet (using a D60) - but I do think I would still get a d300 as well as d700. The magnification factor would be useful without carrying too monstrous a lens!
The one rule I've decided to follow is not to buy APS-C lenses. I got the two which came in the kit, but my only other lens is a full frame Sigma 180 Macro, and any further lenses will be FF as well.
Apart from giving extra clarity on APS-C, it means they will be there for use on the FF.
Anyone going into DSLR photography now should consider this route - it is more expensive in the short term, but cheaper in the long run
So, you'll be buying (when they undoubtedly do appear!) the designed for digital FF lenses, or just using the 'Old' 35mm ones?
I'm sorry if people are cheesed off with me going on about the likelihood of manufacturers completely redesigning their optics, but I'm darn sure this is going to happen...
It occurs to me, that Minolta has probably the least to lose and possibly the most to gain from bringing out a completely new range of digital optics for their FF camera/s, maybe even with a new mount ... It might annoy some die-hard Minolta users, but doing so on their first FF model, would be a very logical move.
I've voted yes. The larger photosites and sensor size and increased quality are important IMO.
That's exactly why I bought my 770SW. NOT because of the varied reviews but because it's so robust and waterproof. Having argued in favour of IQ as being the most important criterion over features in earlier posts, I admit 100% that in this case, I went for features over IQ!!! /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif My excuse is that it was (at the time) the only camera that met my needs - pocketable, sweatproof and snorkellable with, even if IQ isn't perfect - especially at higher ISOs.
I'm not sure that wide angle capability is an issue, AFAIK Canon's widest current FF lens is the EF 14mm f2.8L USM.
Nikon have the FX compatible 14mm f/2.8D ED AF NIKKOR
You can get the same angle of view on the smaller formats.
You can't get 12mm equivalent on any smaller format, though, which you can on FF with the Sigma 12-24.
"You can get the same angle of view on the smaller formats."
Well, my 12-24 is in effect 19-38mm on my 20D. To get a real 12mm I'd have to use a 8mm and I don't know of too many non fish eye 8mm's I could use.
We're already seeing Canon releasing "Mk II" versions of some of their lenses ...
I'm not cheesed off, in fact I'd go further: I'm on record as saying that at some point the manufacturers are going to have to upgrade the existing mount (bigger throat) if they're going to get optimum performance from FF sensors as the pixel count grows. In fact, the cynical part of me says they're only waiting for us to "invest" enough before making our existing kit obsolete.
Alan, Nick, fair enough, I hadn't considered 3rd party lenses but to be honest there's no reason why you couldn't have an 8mm non fish eye, after all Olympus have the 7-14mm. Granted thats effectively 14-28 but if you can make a non-fisheye lens with an FL of 7mm for 4/3rds you can make it for APS-C where it would be approx 10mm effective.
The point is that the fact that it isn't available isn't as a result of the actual size of the sensor it's simply that it hasn't been made.
What about the Sigma 10-20? It's not exactly obscure; there must be thousands of references to it in there forums alone.
It's not a FF lens so using it on an APS-C it's effectively 15mm.
The point I'm getting at is that people claim and have done since the introduction of APS-C DSLR's that you need FF for wide angle capability. Clearly thats nonsense, if manufacturers wanted to produce a lens for APS-C that equalled the widest available for FF then they could do it. If you can make a non-fisheye lens with an actual FL of 7mm for a 4/3rds camera then you can make it for an APS-C one where it will give the same angle of view as a Full Frame camera with a 10mm lens.
Reduced Pixel density and the resulting improvment in high ISO performance is where Full Frame has the advantage as long as you don't use the increased area of the Full Frame sensor to cram in an ever increasing amount of pixels.
And the Oly 7-14mm is effectively 14-28mm.
Indeed it is. But there are far more lenses available which will cover say 20mm (effective) on FF cameras than on APS-C cameras. The range of APS-C/DX only wide angle lenses is increasing but still hasn't caught up.
Fact of the matter is, the mount flange to focal plane distance dictates that a short focus Canon EOS / Nikon AF / whatever fitting lens needs to have a strong retrofocal design. Which means the rear element needs to be exceptionally large in order to illuminate the sensor properly. Which the "traditional" mounts can't do with cropped sensors ... they "get away with it" for FF lenses because the amount of retrofocus reduction required is not as great. OTOH the four thirds mount has a generous sized hole suitable for accommodating large rear elements (and a slightly reduced flange to focal plance distance as well).
Short effective focal lengths favour larger sensors just as long effective focal lengths favour smaller sensors, and for exactly the same reason. Though there's no doubt that the "telephoto effect" is very much more significant.
Out of curiosity what is the widest generally available lens that has been produced for 35mm cameras?
I'm sure I've read that it's 12mm.
Not counting fisheyes, 12mm - the Sigma 12-24 and the Voigtlander 12mm.
Oh, and the reason people said you needed full frame for wideangles was no more nor less than availability, not capability - it's really not that long ago that there simply weren't any wideangle lenses for smaller formats.
Absolutely, I wouldn't disagree with that at all. However that they weren't available wasn't due to the fact that they couldn't be made for anything other than a 35mm sized sensor. That you can now get 15mm effective for APS-C and 14mm effective for 4/3rds largely negates the argument to the hypothetical, we're talking about the difference in angle of view between 12mm, 14mm and 15mm. I don't know what the difference is in actual degrees though. I think 12mm is about 120deg and 15mm about 110deg.
There's a 7-14mm Olympus lens but it's listed as being over £1K. That's a lot more than the Sigma 12-24.
Separate names with a comma.