Chuck -
well it probably depends on what you are demanding for your money ?
Lets say you go to your Photodealer of your choice and want to buy a brand new LEICA DG NOCTICRON 1,2/42,5mm H-NS043 for whopping 1500 € (around 2000 $ US).
At home you shoot this lens and (it may or may not equal absolute exposure depending on the technology of your used MFT sensor, most likely it will NOT be the same as most new FF 24x36 sensors) but even worse - the image does not look like a f1,2/85mm (which is the actual used terminology in ads) but exactly like a 2.0/85mm on 35mm FF ?
Wouldn´t you feel cheated ? Especially as a good 2,0/85mm from Nikon, Canon or SonyFF costs only about 1-/4th to 1/5th of this ?
Of course this lens may be the best of the best and you say you don´t care if it is so superior, but additionally you are limited to 16 Mpix resolution whereas the 24x36 FF rise to 36mpix ?
Totally out of relevance ?
Really ?
Hi Stefan,
First off, let's dial back the rhetoric a notch or two, and make sure we are all talking about the same thing, because from the vitriol in this thread we clearly are not.
You and your friend that made the video are looking at the glass half full. I'm not even looking at a glass, I am looking at a set of tools, if you get my drift. I hear your objections, and understand your possibly valid concerns about how the industry chose to express its arcane wisdom over time. Remember though before tossing the whole baby out with the bathwater, there is a lot of history behind those choices. History for creating beautiful, well crafted images, not animated pixel comparison graphs or charts.
You ask do I have concern about a LEICA DG NOCTICRON 1,2/42,5mm on my GH3 not looking like an f1,2/85mm on my Canon 5D Mark III? No, actually I am not. If it did, it wouldn't be any dang good to me either, because Canon already has that covered with the excellent Canon 85mm f/1.2. You've got it backwards.
I would buy the LEICA DG NOCTICRON 1,2/42,5mm for my GH3 to go the OTHER way. In other words, @f8 using the Nocticron, I get total depth of field EXTENDED by two stops, closeup to infinity. Don't forget, in a filmmakers bag of tricks, different sensor sizes are great creative tools as well. You may not like the laws of physics, but we all have to live by them, and to be better photographers, learn to use them to our creative advantage.
If I wanted an 85mm f/1.2 look, I would pull out a 5D Mark III with a Canon 85mm f/1.2. I don't horse around with all those "math computations" your talking about when I am out shooting, nor do I carry my Captain America secret decoder ring. I carry a good light meter, a complete set of primes, a vision of what I want, and the experience collected over the years to help guide me in choosing the right camera sensor size, correct angle, and correct lenses to capture it - at the correct exposure.
I don't have the luxury of the time to run an Excel spreadsheet to compute anything. My clients rightly expect I get familiar with my gear, learn how to use it and what it can do in my own time, and then show up ready to complete the work I contracted with them to produce.
As a DP, I am responsible for deciding I need a GH3 & 12mm @f/2.8 for the look I am after. Or alternatively, maybe it is an 85mm f/1.2 Canon 5D Mark III look that is called for. Both are equally valid options, and both equally exclusive each to the other. I can't get the GH3 to look like the 5D anymore than I can get the 5D to look like the GH3. Or the Fuji X-E1 or the Sony A7R or the tiny Zoom Q4. They all look different, even with the same lens and the best grading suite in the business. MF & LF, same thing. Formats are options too.
What you seem to be saying is a conspiracy by camera manufacturers to somehow cheat the population, I as an artist see as viable creative options I wouldn't want to loose. Hope that helps to understand where some of us are coming from, and what we consider is relevant.