3 ms·

What? He mentions it in the fourth paragraph. > The elephant in the room is legacy lenses: it’s tough for a DSLR owner to give up his glass collection, because

by devb 13y ago

What? He mentions it in the fourth paragraph. > The elephant in the room is legacy lenses: it’s tough for a DSLR owner to give up his glass collection, because a similar depth of offerings simply does not exist in other smaller formats.

abirkill 13y ago
I'm pretty sure when he says 'depth of offerings', he's referring to niche lens types, rather than depth of field. He continues: > Even the most mature of the mirrorless formats – Leica M and M4/3 – both lack any sort of perspective correction lenses, other than using a DSLR lens with a tilt or shift adaptor; there are no native solutions despite them being ideally suited to this kind of work because of live view. Tilt-shift lenses, long working distance macro lenses, wide angle primes, and fast super-telephotos are all hard to find in mirrorless mounts.
- Stratoscope 13y ago
  No question you're right about the tilt-shift. Just to satisfy my curiosity, I wonder if you (or anyone) could compare what's available in DSLR lenses compared to these M4/3 lenses: Wide angle prime: Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 7.5mm f/3.5 rectangular fisheye, 8mm f/3.5 Panasonic, 12mm f/2.0 Olympus Long working distance macro: Olympus 60mm f/2.8, working distance 7.5" for 1:1 image Fast super-telephoto: 100-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Panasonic (yeah, that doesn't sound very fast to me) Not questioning that there are better DSLR lenses, just interested in comparing them to help me understand the differences between the systems. Thanks!
  - abirkill 13y ago
    > Wide angle prime: Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 7.5mm f/3.5 rectangular fisheye, 8mm f/3.5 Panasonic, 12mm f/2.0 Olympus The focal lengths are there but the apertures are narrower than the most common full-frame wide-angle primes, e.g. 14mm f/2.8 or 24mm f/1.4. This means less light, and also, as discussed elsewhere, a much wider minimum depth of field on the m4/3 lenses, due to the smaller sensor. (I meant to say 'fast wide-angle primes' in my original post, my mistake). > Long working distance macro: Olympus 60mm f/2.8, working distance 7.5" for 1:1 image My understanding was that 7.5" was the MFD (the distance from the film/sensor to the subject), not the MWD (the distance from the front element to the subject), on this lens, but I haven't used it. This review seems to suggest a working distance of 90mm (~3.5 inches) at 1:1, but it may also be wrong: http://savazzi.freehostia.com/photography/olympus60mm.html http://savazzi.freehostia.com/photography/olympus60mm.html If it does have a working distance of 7.5" at 1:1 that's very respectable -- up there with a 150mm, and not far below a 180mm full-frame macro. > Fast super-telephoto: 100-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Panasonic Again, the focal lengths here are good, and it's a zoom (try finding a 200-600mm zoom lens of any aperture for a full-frame camera), but the aperture is again a bit disappointing when compared to something like a 400mm f/2.8, both in terms of the amount of light it lets in and how shallow the depth of field is. Don't misunderstand me -- there are a great range of lenses for both m4/3 and Sony NEX cameras, which cover the popular focal lengths and produce stunning results. They're also usually a lot cheaper (that Panasonic telephoto is around $600, vs. around $10,000 for a 400mm f/2.8 full-frame lens) and a lot lighter. But if you've already spent $10,000 on a 400mm f/2.8 for your full-frame camera (and are making money from it), you're probably going to want a lens that will give similar results before you go mirrorless, which I think was the author's point.
    - Stratoscope 13y ago
      Thanks very much for the insightful info, just what I was looking for. I expected that there would be much better full frame lenses, was just curious to know what the state of the art is. Yeah, I had the working distances confused on the 60mm macro: I just tested mine and it focuses to about 3.5" from the lens, 7.5" from the focal plane. I agree completely with your conclusion: it's all about tradeoffs and which works best for your needs. I've sure been delighted with the m4/3 lenses I have, and the size and weight and low cost figure into that. But of course if I needed more light gathering and shallow depth of field and were using it to make money it would be a different story.
andrewaylett 13y ago
I think when he says depth of offerings he's talking about the number and variety of different lenses available, rather than the depth of field of any particular lens.

by devb 13y ago

abirkill 13y ago

I'm pretty sure when he says 'depth of offerings', he's referring to niche lens types, rather than depth of field. He continues: > Even the most mature of the mirrorless formats – Leica M and M4/3 – both lack any sort of perspective correction lenses, other than using a DSLR lens with a tilt or shift adaptor; there are no native solutions despite them being ideally suited to this kind of work because of live view. Tilt-shift lenses, long working distance macro lenses, wide angle primes, and fast super-telephotos are all hard to find in mirrorless mounts.

Stratoscope 13y ago
No question you're right about the tilt-shift. Just to satisfy my curiosity, I wonder if you (or anyone) could compare what's available in DSLR lenses compared to these M4/3 lenses: Wide angle prime: Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 7.5mm f/3.5 rectangular fisheye, 8mm f/3.5 Panasonic, 12mm f/2.0 Olympus Long working distance macro: Olympus 60mm f/2.8, working distance 7.5" for 1:1 image Fast super-telephoto: 100-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Panasonic (yeah, that doesn't sound very fast to me) Not questioning that there are better DSLR lenses, just interested in comparing them to help me understand the differences between the systems. Thanks!
- abirkill 13y ago
  > Wide angle prime: Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 7.5mm f/3.5 rectangular fisheye, 8mm f/3.5 Panasonic, 12mm f/2.0 Olympus The focal lengths are there but the apertures are narrower than the most common full-frame wide-angle primes, e.g. 14mm f/2.8 or 24mm f/1.4. This means less light, and also, as discussed elsewhere, a much wider minimum depth of field on the m4/3 lenses, due to the smaller sensor. (I meant to say 'fast wide-angle primes' in my original post, my mistake). > Long working distance macro: Olympus 60mm f/2.8, working distance 7.5" for 1:1 image My understanding was that 7.5" was the MFD (the distance from the film/sensor to the subject), not the MWD (the distance from the front element to the subject), on this lens, but I haven't used it. This review seems to suggest a working distance of 90mm (~3.5 inches) at 1:1, but it may also be wrong: http://savazzi.freehostia.com/photography/olympus60mm.html http://savazzi.freehostia.com/photography/olympus60mm.html If it does have a working distance of 7.5" at 1:1 that's very respectable -- up there with a 150mm, and not far below a 180mm full-frame macro. > Fast super-telephoto: 100-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Panasonic Again, the focal lengths here are good, and it's a zoom (try finding a 200-600mm zoom lens of any aperture for a full-frame camera), but the aperture is again a bit disappointing when compared to something like a 400mm f/2.8, both in terms of the amount of light it lets in and how shallow the depth of field is. Don't misunderstand me -- there are a great range of lenses for both m4/3 and Sony NEX cameras, which cover the popular focal lengths and produce stunning results. They're also usually a lot cheaper (that Panasonic telephoto is around $600, vs. around $10,000 for a 400mm f/2.8 full-frame lens) and a lot lighter. But if you've already spent $10,000 on a 400mm f/2.8 for your full-frame camera (and are making money from it), you're probably going to want a lens that will give similar results before you go mirrorless, which I think was the author's point.
  - Stratoscope 13y ago
    Thanks very much for the insightful info, just what I was looking for. I expected that there would be much better full frame lenses, was just curious to know what the state of the art is. Yeah, I had the working distances confused on the 60mm macro: I just tested mine and it focuses to about 3.5" from the lens, 7.5" from the focal plane. I agree completely with your conclusion: it's all about tradeoffs and which works best for your needs. I've sure been delighted with the m4/3 lenses I have, and the size and weight and low cost figure into that. But of course if I needed more light gathering and shallow depth of field and were using it to make money it would be a different story.

andrewaylett 13y ago

I think when he says depth of offerings he's talking about the number and variety of different lenses available, rather than the depth of field of any particular lens.