There seems to be a bit of confusion here which I suspect is due to some
loose terminology.
This is a true statement with respect to resolution alone: "This lens IS
equivalent to a 30mm f/16 in 35mm terms, and can resolve no more than
what a 30mm at f/16 can." A 4/3 lens at f/8 and a 35mm lens at f/16 can
both resolve about 7-8 MP. Obviously, f/8 and f/16 are not the same
with respect to exposure.
However: "Stop any lens on a digital sensor down that far, and the
output becomes quite a bit softer." is not a true statement since it
doesn't differentiate differently sized digital sensors. A full-frame
(35mm size) digital sensor at f/8 will resolve about 29MP. That's
sufficient to resolve to the full capability of any currently available
camera with the possible exception of the latest Nikon D800 which has a
36MP sensor. Also, what's important here is physical size of sensor or
film frame and the size of the pixels or film grains. Whether it's
digital or not is not relevant. The lens doesn't know the difference.
I agree that an f/5.6 lens would have been nicer and would likely have
resolved to the limit of today's 4/3 sensors. But it would also have
been much more expensive while also yielding slightly less depth of field.
Chuck Norcutt
On 9/19/2012 11:31 AM, Dawid Loubser wrote:
> Oh, not this again. One would think with me actually being a four thirds
> user, I should be able to discuss equivalence around here.
>
> This lens IS equivalent to a 30mm f/16 in 35mm terms, and can resolve no
> more than what a 30mm at f/16 can. Stop any lens on a digital sensor
> down that far, and the output becomes quite a bit softer. Not a problem
> for most images, but this is an indisputable fact.
>
> On the other hand, for fixed-focus, this is probably a decent
> compromise, although f/5.6 would have been much better IMHO. Could have
> had near-peak performance that way.
>
> Oh well... a very unusual and daring release by Olympus :-)
>
> Dawid
>
> On Wed, 2012-09-19 at 10:26 -0400, Moose wrote:
>> On 9/19/2012 8:01 AM, Dawid Loubser wrote:
>>> It's really odd, that - I saw it yesterday on the review site.
>>>
>>> I have to question the utility, but it's certainly interesting. Must be
>>> totally diffraction-limited already (equivalent to a 30mm f/16, totally
>>> weird).
>>
>> Pay attention, dude! The f-stop doesn't change - 30/8 eq.
>>
>> Corrective Moose
>>
>> --
>> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|