Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 52
  1. Collapse Details
    #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Hollywood, USA
    Posts
    754
    Default
    I don't know how you could totally ignore the lumix 12-35 zoom especially when describing the Olympus 12-40. The lumix has the advantage of image stabilization.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #22
    Bronze Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    165
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucknfl View Post
    I don't know how you could totally ignore the lumix 12-35 zoom especially when describing the Olympus 12-40. The lumix has the advantage of image stabilization.
    Both lenses are a trade off. Panasonic 12-35 doesn't have manual repeatable focus. Even in manual focus mode, it's still servo driven electric focus, which makes is a no go for rack focusing. Olympus doesn't have IS, which is a draw back for shooting stills, not video. Still lenses IS is not designed for video, and 12-35 gives a weird wobble effect, which simply looks bad. There was also an issue, if you point your camera in downward angle, where IS was simply destroying the footage. I don't know if the issue was fixed. The best way to approach it is just to rent both lenses for a few days from borrowlenses or lensrentals, and see what works better for your needs. From what I have seen at NAB, Olympus 12-40 is simply better lens for video shooting.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #23
    Senior Member Bern Caughey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    4,234
    Default
    We use OIS regularly with few issues, & when need be there's a switch to turn it off.

    Not sure how the manual focus clutch works on Olympus' 12-40mm but it's unusable on the 12mm as it moved the focus in steps instead of smoothly. Supposedly the 17mm is better, & the zoom is newer than both, so may not be an issue.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #24
    Senior Member thorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Tallahassee, FL
    Posts
    121
    Default
    I just checked the article - it's got a nice breakdown.

    But there's one part that I believe should be completely reworded/rewritten - the points on the crop factor:


    One benefit of MFT’s crop factor is that your lenses have farther reach on a MFT camera like the GH4. A lens will appear more “zoomed in” on MFT than it does on FF.

    For example, a 300mm lens on the GH4 will have the same reach as a 600mm lens on a FF camera.


    The reason I'm suggesting a change, is because although this is standard dogma on m4/3, it can be completely confusing and misleading to people new to the format. Specifally: a m4/3 with a 300mm does NOT have the same reach of a FF 600mm. Zoom factors do not change with the format whatsoever. If you need the zoom factor of a 600mm lens (of ANY format), you have to use a 600mm lens. This is a crucial point, perhaps even moreso with video - when you can't just walk closer to your subject. The magnification factor of a lens has nothing to do with the size of the sensor.

    Yes, the final picture - the Field Of View - is equivalent. But that is a point that has been so overstated by people that it has become confusing. It's not an advantage of m4/3, it's a disadvantage. If I take a 300 DPI image and crop out the outer 50%, I don't magically get more detail (zoom) with the remaining inner 50%. It's not zoom factor detail that is preserved with cropping, it is image data that was thrown away.

    Combine this with the fact that you can use a native FF 50 lens on a m4/3 camera. It still zooms just like a 50mm FF lens. The difference is that your subject is cropped in the viewfinder.

    All of the dogma is true in terms of viewfinder composition, but again - it's no different (in the end) than taking a FF image and cropping it in photoshop or premiere. The zoom level of the lens remains constant.

    Sorry to beat this point into the ground... but when I first came to this format, I couldn't make heads nor tails of what the lens was ACTUALLY doing on the camera, compared to FF - because I'd read all about the "equivalency" over and over and over.


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #25
    Senior Member joe1946's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Millstone,NJ USA
    Posts
    1,553
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by thorn View Post
    I just checked the article - it's got a nice breakdown.

    But there's one part that I believe should be completely reworded/rewritten - the points on the crop factor:


    One benefit of MFT’s crop factor is that your lenses have farther reach on a MFT camera like the GH4. A lens will appear more “zoomed in” on MFT than it does on FF.

    For example, a 300mm lens on the GH4 will have the same reach as a 600mm lens on a FF camera.


    The reason I'm suggesting a change, is because although this is standard dogma on m4/3, it can be completely confusing and misleading to people new to the format. Specifally: a m4/3 with a 300mm does NOT have the same reach of a FF 600mm. Zoom factors do not change with the format whatsoever. If you need the zoom factor of a 600mm lens (of ANY format), you have to use a 600mm lens. This is a crucial point, perhaps even moreso with video - when you can't just walk closer to your subject. The magnification factor of a lens has nothing to do with the size of the sensor.

    Yes, the final picture - the Field Of View - is equivalent. But that is a point that has been so overstated by people that it has become confusing. It's not an advantage of m4/3, it's a disadvantage. If I take a 300 DPI image and crop out the outer 50%, I don't magically get more detail (zoom) with the remaining inner 50%. It's not zoom factor detail that is preserved with cropping, it is image data that was thrown away.

    Combine this with the fact that you can use a native FF 50 lens on a m4/3 camera. It still zooms just like a 50mm FF lens. The difference is that your subject is cropped in the viewfinder.

    All of the dogma is true in terms of viewfinder composition, but again - it's no different (in the end) than taking a FF image and cropping it in photoshop or premiere. The zoom level of the lens remains constant.

    Sorry to beat this point into the ground... but when I first came to this format, I couldn't make heads nor tails of what the lens was ACTUALLY doing on the camera, compared to FF - because I'd read all about the "equivalency" over and over and over.
    So you are saying the 4.1-82mm zoom in the Sony PXW-Z100 4K Handheld XDCAM Camcorder will have the exact same reach as an 82mm in a full frame camera ?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Juj6Llhc-xM
    GH5, Sony FDR-X3000,Nikon P1000 , a6300 , NX1 , GH4 , Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 8-18mm f/2.8-4 , Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2 ASPH Power OIS , Voigtländer Nokton 25mm f/0.95 ,Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 75 mm f/1.8 ED , 100-300mm F/4.0-5.6 OIS , Sony A7r , FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS , Sony Zeiss Sonnar T* FE 55mm f/1.8 ZA ,Sony Zeiss Sonnar T* FE 35mm f/2.8 ZA , 28-70mm FE OSS, 15mm F2.8 , 24mm F1.4, 50mm F1.4, 85mm F1.4


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #26
    Senior Member Mark Williams's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Deep South, U.S.
    Posts
    1,168
    Default
    Although I can't afford to buy an Olympus 12-40, I think I am going to rent one and see if it lives up to all the hype.
    Regards,

    Mark

    GH5, Panasonic 12-60, 14-45, 45-175, Olympus 60 macro, 75-300, Benro S6 Tripod, Rhino Carbon 24" Slider, and Edius 8.5 WG.
    Video channel: https://vimeo.com/channels/3523
    Stock Video: https://www.pond5.com/artist/mark29#1/2063


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #27
    Senior Member stoneinapond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,371
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by snowblindfilm View Post
    There was also an issue, if you point your camera in downward angle, where IS was simply destroying the footage. I don't know if the issue was fixed.
    It was fixed.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #28
    Member bboyfasteddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Orange County CA
    Posts
    78
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Bern Caughey View Post
    The 14-140 (& 12-35) exhibit focus & exposure shifts during actual zooms so perform quite different then ENG lenses.

    That said the 12-35/2.8 is my primary workhorse (for m4/3) followed closely by the 35-100/2.8 (likely the best zoom designed specifically for m4/3) & 50% of our work is documentary.
    wow so not only is it non-constant aperture, but it's not parfocal either? i wasn't planning on doing any zooms while rolling as it doesn't have servo zoom anyway, just trying to get the most focal range in the most cost effective way possible, but it's sounding more and more like this is not a good lens for video. i think i'm still gonna keep it because i need SOMETHING to start with and will probably rent more lenses for gigs until i can buy more.

    on the subject of cropping. i was really interested in the sigma 18-35 with speedbooster. the lens is an APS-C lens rather than FF, with a 35mm equivalent of 28.8-56mm. with the .71x crop factor, would that make it a 20-40, or a 13-25, or something else completely? if i get the oly 12-40 first and get the sigma 18-35 later, will the focal lengths be redundant?
    Last edited by bboyfasteddie; 04-19-2014 at 01:45 PM.
    Camera operator, video editor, motion graphics artist, break dancer
    use at work: Panasonic DVX200, HPX-300, HPX-250, HPX-2700, Grass Valley LDK 3000, Canon 5D III
    gear: Panasonic GH4, Olympus 12-40mm, Voigtlander Nokton 17.5mm and 25mm, Canon XA10, Came-Single gimbal, Benro C2573FS6 tripod, Varavon Slidecam Lite 800


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #29
    Senior Member stoneinapond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,371
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by thorn View Post
    It's not an advantage of m4/3, it's a disadvantage. If I take a 300 DPI image and crop out the outer 50%, I don't magically get more detail (zoom) with the remaining inner 50%. It's not zoom factor detail that is preserved with cropping, it is image data that was thrown away.

    Combine this with the fact that you can use a native FF 50 lens on a m4/3 camera. It still zooms just like a 50mm FF lens. The difference is that your subject is cropped in the viewfinder.

    All of the dogma is true in terms of viewfinder composition, but again - it's no different (in the end) than taking a FF image and cropping it in photoshop or premiere. The zoom level of the lens remains constant.
    I think you are confusing two types of cropping. When you crop an image in a software program, yes you are discarding digital data and therefore loosing resolution. But that is not the same as "sensor crop". You are not loosing any resolution at the sensor by using a full frame or other type of lens on a smaller sensor. Optically the image circle is "cropped" from what would otherwise be captured by a larger sensor, but the image that is being recorded uses the entire sensor. There's a big difference there.

    As to zooms or in this case telephoto lenses, people need to be careful when talking about equivalency and that is an unfortunate habit that the industry has adopted. When using a lens designed for a larger sensor, the image will appear "bigger" or closer on a small sensor over a bigger sensor. It's a field- or angle-of-view issue as you correctly pointed out. What doesn't translate when using a telephoto is the compression between subject and background. That will not be the same. So the common phrase is "a 50mm is always a 50mm" regardless of sensor size. It's the narrowing of the field of view that creates the apparent perception of a longer lens, but the foreground to background ratio stays the same.

    Again, a crop sensor does not throw away information. Resolution is not compromised, it's just an optical illusion......


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #30
    Senior Member thorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Tallahassee, FL
    Posts
    121
    Default
    @joe1946:

    I've no knowledge of that camera, so I can't give an educated answer - especially that some camcorders have digital zoom factors as well. It would be something one would have to test.

    @stoneinapond:

    I think in my effort to explain crop vs FOV vs zoom ratios, I made a confusing statement of my own. You're quite correct - the crop isn't really compromising the data at all, it's just a matter of what was captured, and what wasn't. Mea culpa. ;)


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •