GH5 MFT lenses VS "the greats"

[TheDingo]

With MFT sensors, sharpness isn't going to hold up past f/11

But that's the same DOF as f/22 with a Full Frame camera, and the Full Frame camera is going to have exactly the same diffraction problems holding up past f/22.

The only real drawback I can see with MFT sensors is extremely shallow DOF shooting, where there is no MFT DOF equivalent to a f/1.4 or f/1.2 lens on a Full Frame camera.

 

[Lpowell]

But that's the same DOF as f/22 with a Full Frame camera, and the Full Frame camera is going to have exactly the same diffraction problems holding up past f/22.

Granted, but DOF is far from the only consideration. With a FF sensor, f8 is right in the middle of an f2.8 zoom's 7-stop usable aperture range. With MFT, you're restricted to a 6-stop usable aperture range, with a midpoint closer to f5.6. Compare the MTF charts on these two prime macro lenses:

http://opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/817-nikkorafs10528vrfx?start=1

http://opticallimits.com/m43/781-oly6028?start=1

 

[TheDingo]

Granted, but DOF is far from the only consideration. With a FF sensor, f8 is right in the middle of an f2.8 zoom's 7-stop usable aperture range. With MFT, you're restricted to a 6-stop usable aperture range, with a midpoint closer to f5.6. Compare the MTF charts on these two prime macro lenses:

A better lens for the MFT side of things is the older 4/3 Olympus 50mm f/2.0 macro, which also has the 7-stop usable aperture range of the FF lens.

Olympus 50mm f/2 Zuiko Digital Macro

 

[Thomas Smet]

Granted, but DOF is far from the only consideration. With a FF sensor, f8 is right in the middle of an f2.8 zoom's 7-stop usable aperture range. With MFT, you're restricted to a 6-stop usable aperture range, with a midpoint closer to f5.6. Compare the MTF charts on these two prime macro lenses:

http://opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/817-nikkorafs10528vrfx?start=1

http://opticallimits.com/m43/781-oly6028?start=1

Thats what ND filters are for. I rarely judge a lens by how good it gets when trying to let light through a pin hole. I would argue that using well made ND filters are a much better and more accurate way to adjust the light hitting the sensor anyway. Sure FF may be easier to get sharper shots stopped down more when used naked (the lens not me) but I honestly don't find that to be a big deal. Even a one or two stop ND filter can sometimes be enough to keep that in check while still providing range to adjust as the light changes.

 

[filmguy123]

m43 may only have a 6 stop useable apeture range, but I find that I pretty much only ever use 3, maybe 4 of those. ND filters are preferable to keep aesthetic control and preference.

Also, I feel overwhelmed with wide angle options on m43... the whole FOV crop factor concern on m43 seems outdated and largely irrelevant, unless one is only willing to use adapted glass (and even then, it's hardly a concern these days). Frankly, the crop factor has more benefits than drawbacks in my personal view - small, lightweight telephoto options are truly great (and the wide lenses are pretty small and light too!). That's a big boon on the extreme ranges that m43 has over larger formats, now that the format has been on market so long and developed so many great lens options and tools.

 

[Lpowell]

A better lens for the MFT side of things is the older 4/3 Olympus 50mm f/2.0 macro, which also has the 7-stop usable aperture range of the FF lens.

True, not coincidentally because it's an f2 lens. Of course, we can adapt f1.8 zooms to MFT and speedboost them down to less than f1.4. That's all good, but confirms f2.8 and below as MFT's sweet spot. In practice, FF offers a broader working range, from f1.4 - f11, so long as you have the room to manage framing and DOF.

 

[combatentropy]

The diffraction limit at f/11 on 4/3 is 4.8K, and at f/16 is 3.4K. So technically you're right, the lens no longer can meet the sensor's full resolution. However, the resolution at f/16 is still 3.4K!

And 4K only looks twice as good as 2K on paper. 3.4K still exceeds the resolution of the Arri Alexa.

 

[filmguy123]

How about lenses like the Lumix 12-35?

I'd love to see a BMD PCC4K camera test side by side a GH5S with this lens, and others, that utilize the optical distortion and other corrections. I am wondering how good this electronically corrected glass actually is without any corrections, and if when on a body not employing anything like this, if the glass shows poor distortion or corner sharpness, etc?

 

[TheDingo]

I'd love to see a BMD PCC4K camera test side by side a GH5S with this lens, and others, that utilize the optical distortion and other corrections.

Up to now some reviewers have been shooting RAW GH5 photos to determine how a lens performs without electronic corrections, so if you are curious this is one way to see what's happening.