k-hawinkler
Well-known member
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.
Chuck, well said. Thank you.
I consider it absolutely wonderful to have all these choices and the competition between equipment makers to keep costs down. Besides the creative choices/reasons you list there are also other ones that make me prefer one tool or format over another one for a given situation. For example bulk or weight considerations. I use everything from my iPhone to iPad, E-M5, E-M1, NEX-5N, NEX-7, D40, D200, D300, D3, M9, A7R, and D800E. I even used a G3 and S95. What's not to like?
I find the technical progress that has been made in the last few years quite amazing. With an A7R as a back MF isn't out of reach for me anymore. Even light field cameras might get advanced enough to become interesting tools, not just novelties.
I suspect some who inject cheating into this discussion are driven by ulterior motives. Enough said!
Last edited: