Quote from: cosinaphile on June 12, 2011, 08:11:45 AM

edit to punctuiate and capitalize and clarify so you may understand betterwhat i am saying to you .
Im not sure i agree that it`s miniturization that justifies the added cost.   They are not that much smaller than aps-c.  It aint nanotechnology! it`s shrinking by a third?,or  a half?, which is meaningless in that type of manufactering.IMHO.   Consider the high end compacts like the canon s95... the ricoh GXR or GX 200 the olympus XZ    the samsung EX1\TL500

Sorry, but I find it almost impossible to read your writing. Perhaps a language barrier?

What I can read is full of unsupported claims. Shrinking sensors and retaining the same quality is not easy, no matter what conspiracies you prefer to read into this optical challenge. Comparing to a point'n'shoot misses the point..  If you want camera with zero depth-of-field control, high noise, low detail etc. then go ahead and buy such a system. But that is not the MFT situation

For MFT to compete with other interchangeable lens systems it must achieve a significantly high level of IQ. One big challenge is how to focus light onto a relatively small sensor accurately. Please read how Fuji did it for their X100 -- they have good literature on the subject. It required that they limit the system to a fixed lens. MFT does not make that compromise and so something else must give.

It is true that MFT is not dramatically smaller than APS-C but then APS-C has exactly the same problem, which is why you won't find any f/2 zooms in that world either. It's much easier to design optics for full-frame and medium format systems.

no, you are wrong again. It is not easier to design  full frame and aps-c optics . i cant understand why you would make such a claim, and where you would try to gather data to support such a fallacy.

on the topic of  high quality compact cameras with high quality complex zooms:

These cameras have zooms as complex or more complex than many aps-c zooms.   We are not talking about a $99  nikon POS here. these complex zoom lenses  [my gxr 24-72 2.5 -4.4 module has 11 elements, four of the aspherical]
you say :
 "If you want camera with zero depth-of-field control, high noise, low detail etc. then go ahead and buy such a system. But that is not the MFT situation"
that is just a silly statement , good compacts control noise pretty well and produce beautiful and sharp raw and jpeg files of 10 to 12 mp. My samsung  tl 500  at f 1.8 gives a better defocused backround  than any micro 4\3kit zoom at f 4 .

I own 4 micro 4\3bodies, and know their stregnths and weaknessess intimately , but from your comments i dont know if you have ever spent any quality time with a high end compact ,   such is your confusion as to their capabilities compared with micro 4\3.   Your opinion of these highend compacts seems almost fanboyish to me in support of m4\3 , but with me, your preaching to the converted ;I love and use micro 4\3 almost daily.
the same tone of disdain  i detect in your opinions of compacts, i  have heard constantly  from the church o aps- c and full framers.  They will never acknowlege  how good micro four thirds is .

They will say things like :" I cant get the same sharpness in my files "     'micro 4\3 =lousy depth of field control."..."micro four thirds is too noisey compared to aps-c" .........The exact  same criticisms you level at the compacts i earlier  defended, in fact.


lastly,
By your reasoning of smaller equals more expensive and   since these miniature marvels that must produce excellent  10-12mp files in raw, on sensors 1\6 the size of an apsc sensor they should be very costly , but the truth is they are not, they are reasonably priced because of economies of scale and the relatively tiny optics they can use.
on the x 100 ,I suggest you re read the info yourself.
they achieved that miracle by making a prime in a very unconventional way by making the the rearmost element gigantic compared to the front element . this was done to even the light across the optical circle.
furthermore the lenses excellence depends in part on the design of the fuji x 100 sensor.
sensor dedication is possible in all fixed lens compacts compacts,  and the x 100 uses  microlenses on that its sensor to better the optical performance of the entire instrument . m4\3 does not.
ive spent countless hours reading about the x 100 , it site contains an unusual wealth of info and has since the camera was first announced
since that time i have read no less that 10 reviews of that camera , even ken rockwells excellent observations !
 and cant fathom why you brought the camera up in this exchange of ideas which is about  something completely different.
 

i do agree with one thing you said .
"Shrinking sensors and retaining the same quality is not easy, no matter what conspiracies you prefer to read into this optical challenge."
with the better compacts sensors being approx 1\6 the size of an aps-c sensor producing 1.8 -2.5 zooms that produce outstanding  sharp 10 mp raw file is an amazing technical feat achieved with complex optical formulas
oftern having 10 to 15 optical element like many of their apsc counterparts and as many as 4 aspherical lens surfaced per  lens unit.

no, you are wrong again. It is not easier to design  full frame and aps-c optics . i cant understand why you would make such a claim, and where you would try to gather data to support such a fallacy.

Let me try to explain simply. If you cram more pixels in a smaller amount of area on a sensor the pixel size must be smaller. The light that hits this sensor now has to be more accurately targeted in order to hit the microlens accurately. Any light from off-angle will be used inefficiently. Secondly, light coming from a wider angle outside the lens needs to be bent more to get to the smaller sensor. Both of these constraints mandate more precise lens design to reach the same optical quality as can be achieved with less effort (eg. cost) on a larger sensor with lower pixel density.

Cameras with smaller sensors and increased pixel density commonly have increased purple fringing, LoCA, CA, vignetting, distortion and so on. Every test site of repute shows this.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I have used high quality compacts and everything up to medium format cameras. This doesn't make me more knowledgeable, however. Just as your sad attempt to discredit me by assuming I have not used these cameras is doomed to failure. It's one of those logical fallacies you accuse me of using... though I don't see you point out how and where I have done so.

You also seem pre-occupied with whether I am a "fanboy" of MFT or not. Please detach your emotions from a factual debate and you might learn something. How can I be a fanboy of a system I have used for two weeks and which is significantly inferior in all optical properties to those cameras I have used for several decades? I use different systems for their advantages and am not so emotionally dependent on them that I cannot see their weaknesses.

they achieved that miracle by making a prime in a very unconventional way by making the the rearmost element gigantic compared to the front element . this was done to even the light across the optical circle.
furthermore the lenses excellence depends in part on the design of the fuji x 100 sensor.

Without doing these things, other systems with equal or smaller sensors operate at a disadvantage. That is exactly the point I was making. MFT cameras do not include any of this technology and are hence inferior at solving this optical problem. (Nor could they, since the solutions do not permit interchangeable lenses.)

A simple Google search will reveal dozens of articles confirming my information, but maybe start with Matching Lenses and Sensors, from an engineering site referenced by Schneider Optics among other reputed firms.

You may wish to refute what is common knowledge in an entire industry. Good luck with that.

rparmar, cosina, I would like to see a clean, cool debate, instead of personal attacks, or I'll lock the topic.
You both are experienced photographers and grown up men, treat yourselves as such.

rparmar, cosina, I would like to see a clean, cool debate, instead of personal attacks, or I'll lock the topic.

If you wish to accuse me of a personal attack please do it with some evidence so I know what is out of bounds. I see no personal attacks in what I have written. Feel free to PM me, etc.

the closest monty python sketch im reminded is the fish slapping dance , with a touch of  a dead parrot that has ceased to be 

lighten up , we are not enemies here, just folks with different points of view , i clearly state every point i wish to refute concerning your low opinion of compacts  .   
and what i perceive to be a clear misunderstanding concerning the  nature on optical shortcoming of compacts especially ca and vignetting .my above posts and the points they make are clear ,you are free to disagree and have.... you suggest theyre a herasy of the lituragy at lensmakers sites.... so be it .enough ... i tried to make nice with you, but you seem to want to keep tensions high , but really this has no place  at this forum
as adash points out . we are a pretty friendly group
and as it seems we are off to a bad start let say no more of this dead horse err parrot and "try to get along"

rodney king style 

or should i just go to hell?

Quote from: M5-User on June 11, 2011, 03:50:33 PM

As far as f/2 primes like the 4/3 system.. Why should they duplicate High Grade lenses, when there are adapters to use 4/3 on m4/3 with almost total compatabilty?

It is totally a marketing move to save money. Not good in many of our eyes, but, a smart move on their's as finacial move.

. . . because the HG and SHG lenses can be made sharper on the m43 platform.

It's the same size sensor, just the optical configuration would have to change to allow for a shorter register, that's all.. But, it would be a more complicated optical formula for sure...

Quote from: M5-User on June 13, 2011, 06:05:20 PM

Quote from: jap on June 13, 2011, 04:50:08 PM

Quote from: M5-User on June 11, 2011, 03:50:33 PM

As far as f/2 primes like the 4/3 system.. Why should they duplicate High Grade lenses, when there are adapters to use 4/3 on m4/3 with almost total compatabilty?

It is totally a marketing move to save money. Not good in many of our eyes, but, a smart move on their's as finacial move.

. . . because the HG and SHG lenses can be made sharper on the m43 platform.

It's the same size sensor, just the optical configuration would have to change to allow for a shorter register, that's all.. But, it would be a more complicated optical formula for sure...

Actually, it would be a less complicated optical formula for m4:3. Standard and wide angle lenses for SLR's require a retro-focusing group of lens elements to help extend the main lens group far enough to allow the mirror to clear the lens assembly when it flips upward for exposure. This adds more lens elements to the formula, which decreases contrast and, consequently, overall sharpness.

A mirror-less camera has no need of such a retro-focus group. Therefore, it can be eliminated completely, allowing less lens elements for greater contrast ant visibly higher overall sharpness.

The 4:3 telephoto lenses also appear to require extra lens elements to satisfy telecentric requirements for optimal sharpness. Thus, we see the 35-100/2 zoom including a very high 21! elements in its design. M4:3 seems to have a lesser need for extra elements to accommodate the Zuiko Digital telecentric philosophy. Therefore, they should be able to design more compact telephoto lenses with less elements.

With the m4:3 platform, the early Olympus promises of smaller, more compact, and lighter lenses can actually come to fruition.

I can see that now, Being a RF user also, all of my lenses I had owned were non-retro-focus types OR dang close.... I had a very compact 21mm f/4 by Voigtlander and a compact 28mm f1.9, and a compact 35mm f/1.4. All where made to clear the few mm's needed in front of the shutter for a secondary curtain and or the meter arm in the Leica CL and M5.

Look at the Panny 14-42 compared to the Oly 14-42 MkII ED... a collapsible lens in essence, and more compact than the Panny when in use.

Wow... I go away for a couple days and so much has happened in this thread!

Quote from: M5-User on June 11, 2011, 03:50:33 PM

As far as f/2 primes like the 4/3 system.. Why should they duplicate High Grade lenses, when there are adapters to use 4/3 on m4/3 with almost total compatabilty?

Personally I'd rather not have to use an adapter to fit an unnecessarily big lens with reduced AF performance. m4/3 needs native lenses in order to maintain momentum going ahead, including fast and/or compact primes. Non native lenses such as 4/3 are just a temporary solution filling in gaps. Further to that, I'd say affordable primes are more important than high end ones in the short term. Some high end primes will make good news and get publicity, but the majority of people will want and get the more affordable ones.

yes i agree 4\3 were a stopgap  feature ..and olympus never was able ,in my opinion , to get them to autofucus properly or be useable in a good way on m4\3.... hunting.... excruciatingly slow and inconsistant focus charges were leveled at many, but not all, of the
4\3 lenses used with the adapter. perhaps olympus hit a technological hurdle  that didnt allow fixing this problem , or perhaps they lost interest after realizing that the pr damage was done concerning 4\3 on m4\3 bodies , with olympus and their seemingly cavalier attitude , i just dont know.

.and going foward the system needs some affordable primes , nikon routinely releases them because they are following a historical tradition in the slr world that shows some fairness  and empathy for their user base and recognizes their user base needs a variety of economic choices in nikon system users are to be treated fairly across the world at large. they recently released an updated 50mm 1.8 g ,at about 225 us dollars,  and a fast 35  1.8 was released recently that is really optically excellent for under 300 us dollars they also have a 50 1.4 for between 4-500 us dollars ...an 85 1.8 is not expensive either
when micro four thirds starts respecting their user base with affordable fast prime options
their penitration into the marketplace will increase dramatically, but unfortunately
i detect no such mindset from the m4\3 makers.