Looking for:
Capture One for iPad to launch on June 28, cost $5 per month: Digital Photography Review.Discover Capture One for Fujifilm |
Free photo editing software for Fujifilm
The OM System mm F2. Check out this ensemble gallery from our team that includes photos from Washington's North Cascades National Park, the Canadian north, the streets of Seattle, and rural England to see how it performs.
View our OM System mm F2. Looking at the young lady in the car seat, the detail in the eyes is really quite remarkable, and this at a not so low iso Who needs more? More speed is always nice. And this particular shot is a tad overexposed but highlights can be recovered.
What went wrong? Decent pictures and good variety, the first time for a very long time. But why can we onlty see cut down images sizes, as has been the case at DPR for a while?
I'm not sure what you mean by cut-down images. Full-resolution versions should be downloadable if you click the link and there's an option to zoom-in to full-resolution. It looks like a pretty good lens, but I don't see a strong reason for a V2 if I already have a V1. I think they updated it to take advantage of what the OM-1 can do, so probably speedier focus and maybe a new coating. Loving the body and design von OM. But the rendering is a bit behind X-Trans. It was hard to choose between OM and Fujifilm.
I took Fujifilm for the classic dials and monitor.. For me, X-Trans is a disadvantage. On the downside, X-Trans reduces chroma resolution for green tones substantially compared to Bayer, it introduced new kinds of demosaicing artifacts, demosaicing is more costly with regard to computing power than Bayer i. Actually xtrans oncreases chroma resolution for green tones. Both Bauer and xtrans have their trade offs.
It sure seems to help. The OP made a point about X-Trans, and that invited comments. What's remarkable about the fact that the comments came?
CaPI - the OP made a comment on X-trans so not sure how "this turned into another X-trans discussion" is a valid observation. Images look really good. I can't quite explain it but it just looks better than my version 1 although they are supposed to be optically identical and only the weather sealing is different. I've also dropped mine a few times. I always found this lens has very few compromises. It's reasonably sized, sharp at the 12mm setting sharp enough to use with high res mode and the rest is very good too.
But given Olympus' current resources, I wish they would focus all their efforts on new cameras and new lenses. The only real downside is that it has the nervous bokeh that was characteristic of all the earlier Olympus PRO series lenses. Not nearly as significant an issue with this lens as with the PRO, but it's there.
You are conflating shallow depth of field with bokeh. Many Olympus lenses were very sharp but also produced rather unpleasant bokeh, even with some primes. That was not an Olympus phenomenon, a lot of modern lenses exhibited the same problem.
I feel Panasonic did better, especially with Leica branded primes. Newest Olympus lenses do a much better job in terms of bokeh. Somewhat surprisingly, mm was the first Olympus zoom that did a good job in this regard. The 2. That's just not true at all. There are plenty of slow lenses that have excellent rendering quality and fast lenses that produce unpleasant bokeh.
Also, aperture blade count and shape have almost nothing to do with bokeh unless you're stopping down the lens. You cannot get smooth bokeh with a 7 blade 2.
Having said that, I had a closer look at this gallery and I'm not seeing the bokeh issues I remember from the original I don't own that lens, so maybe my memory exaggerated how bad it was.
But I just checked samples from Lenstip review of the original and there it is, in almost every photo. But I'm not seeing the same ugly bokeh here. You're incorrect, aperture blades only have an effect on bokeh when the lens is stopped down. If the lens is wide open the aperture blades are fully retracted, on most lenses at least, and you have a truly circular aperture. What governs bokeh is primarily the optical design of the lens and how aberrations are over or under corrected.
Astrotripper The original doesn't show the bokeh issues anywhere near as easily as the or even the You really have to end up with an unfortunate combination of aperture, focal length, bright points in the background and subject to background distance for it to be an issue. I never ever seen a low aperture blades have rounded bokeh fully open not once in decades and you can always clearly see the edges. I'm not sure what to tell you but you're just wrong; the vast majority of the lenses on the market have aperture blades that fully retract, as seen through the entrance pupil, when wide open.
The only lenses where you'll still see the aperture blades wide open are usually either macro lenses where the lenses is actually slightly faster than what is specified, like some quasi-constant aperture lenses or certain designs for macro lenses.
Even super cheap lenses like the old Canon plastic fantastic have a perfectly circular aperture wide open despite only have 5 aperture blades. Your are not looking carefully then, also then all lenses would have perfectly rounded fully open and not with classic clear aperture edges when fully open, go through reviews, your own images fully open very few lenses show completely circular orbits, pretty much all low aperture has clear edges.
Also I clearly looked through to see but it can be more tricky too see on none manual lenses, if your not careful enough it can look like these fully retract but they rarely dos. Yes, and this is exactly what you see. I could easily keep going but I think that represents a pretty wide swath of lens types from different manufacturers.
There are certainly lenses out there that do show the blades even when set wide open, but they're by far the exception. Ow- the old ones were optical corrected for the most part. Cargo, not bad at all, I agree, especially taking into account there is no such a lens elsewhere in FF.
Not a great lens but, it exists. Panasonic has the right idea with their lens, MFT actually needs to produce a lens like that. And compare the closest focus distance please!
There is really nothing like that for larger formats. Everything is a compromise. OSPhoto: Your logic is flawed. Nothing whatsoever would be "thrown away". On the contrary, the system would only gain something, regardless of whether you'd like it or see any use in it. New technology and advancement simply has changed the rule of the game. For example Sony now has a UW to W zoom that are lighter the Olympus pro by g and is faster in equivalent terms if Sony do this too their midrange and tele then one of the major advantages are gone as smoke in the wind.
Because of this I think OM-D also need to offer something else then trying to be the light smaller alternative because that game is not what it once was. So they need to offer the f1. Malling: MFT being compact and lightweight isn't really due to equivalent lenses being lighter or more compact, that never was the case.
It's that MFT has some ultra-compact lenses which are slower, in equivalent terms, than what FF offers. Also, your two lenses are not really equivalent; a mm FF would need to be be bigger than an otherwise similar mm as well. Only the fact that the is also a stop faster in equivalent terms reduces the Olympus lens' justification for being larger. And to be really fair, we'd also need to compare performance, in which the Olympus is known to excel, while the Sony so far has seen mixed reviews, like some that say it's a bit soft at 35mm.
You cannot find Equivalent to a it simply dos not exist and certainly not as a 5. The PZ mostly got mixed reviews mostly due to it being PZ it seems to play mind tricks with people valuation. Also hardly any aberration, no loss of contrast etc. There is only one AF in Sony E at 3. I did not word it correctly. For many people you can just go to FF and get "slower" equivalent lenses for cheaper, so the value proposition isn't there.
Certainly it would appeal more to some people already in MFT, but the problem arises that enough people got into MFT because of the smaller size and sometimes lower prices, so it tends to not appeal to enough people in the system.
Why compare to equivalent? Those are quite different lenses. Panasonic would be a better equivalent. Let's not forget that there's actually quite a few UWA options in MFT, you've just chosen the single most over the top option:. Panasonic make one where the range is comparable but variable 2. OSPhoto "you can just go to FF and get 'slower' equivalent lenses for cheaper, so the value proposition isn't there. Certainly it would appeal more to some people already in MFT"—that's partly true, but there are a lot of people who didn't choose MFT for general compactness to begin with.
People like that are not interested in buying into FF just to be able to get those faster MFT lenses cheaper. On the contrary, some are prepared to pay more for something that might even be a larger and heavier lens for MFT. I, for one, definitely am.
No comments:
Post a Comment