呢個真,P記新個支200mm f2.8成1250g
仲重過單反連鏡
M43 平鏡細鏡都出曬，而家出返靚鏡好正常
都冇理由同一焦距同一光圈會大過重過ff鏡，成像圈已經細左喇喎
你要用m43 200 f2.8 同 ff 400 2.8比wo
講緊結構問題
例如咩結構問題?
正路應該細同輕過ff既200/2.8
[細底係原罪] M43呢邊報到 (5)
哈密瓜味雪糕
1001 回覆
7 Like
1 Dislike
第 1 頁第 2 頁第 3 頁第 4 頁第 5 頁第 6 頁第 7 頁第 8 頁第 9 頁第 10 頁第 11 頁第 12 頁第 13 頁第 14 頁第 15 頁第 16 頁第 17 頁第 18 頁第 19 頁第 20 頁第 21 頁第 22 頁第 23 頁第 24 頁第 25 頁第 26 頁第 27 頁第 28 頁第 29 頁第 30 頁第 31 頁第 32 頁第 33 頁第 34 頁第 35 頁第 36 頁第 37 頁第 38 頁第 39 頁第 40 頁第 41 頁
正路應該細同輕過ff既200/2.8
Speed Booster, x0.71, wide 過 APSC
我雙十一都襯有平入咗隻
M43 平鏡細鏡都出曬，而家出返靚鏡好正常
都冇理由同一焦距同一光圈會大過重過ff鏡，成像圈已經細左喇喎
你要用m43 200 f2.8 同 ff 400 2.8比wo
講緊結構問題
例如咩結構問題?
正路應該細同輕過ff既200/2.8
係同400 2.8 比呀
計乜鳩等效，講緊同一焦距
200/2.8就係200/2.8啦
M43 sensor細先要x2咋
搵支ff既200/2.8插落去影出黎係咪一樣呀
9唔撚搭8
M43 平鏡細鏡都出曬，而家出返靚鏡好正常
都冇理由同一焦距同一光圈會大過重過ff鏡，成像圈已經細左喇喎
你要用m43 200 f2.8 同 ff 400 2.8比wo
講緊結構問題
例如咩結構問題?
正路應該細同輕過ff既200/2.8
係同400 2.8 比呀
景深=400/5.6添呀你唔撚講撚埋
我都好想買部ff玩但又怕重唔會帶來帶去．．．．
135菲林單反
得左
買af好喇，手動好重
手動有幾重
你要用m43 200 f2.8 同 ff 400 2.8比wo
講緊結構問題
例如咩結構問題?
正路應該細同輕過ff既200/2.8
係同400 2.8 比呀
計乜鳩等效，講緊同一焦距
200/2.8就係200/2.8啦
M43 sensor細先要x2咋
搵支ff既200/2.8插落去影出黎係咪一樣呀
9唔撚搭8
人地 Design 出黎係當等效 400 2.8 用，你要同 FF 70 - 200 比你用返 35-100 啦屌你，你先9唔撚搭8
答左我先啦
講緊同一個焦距呀成撚日等效等效
點解pana支20可以又輕又細過ff既20但係呢支就調返轉呀
明我講緊乜撚野未呀
我都好想買部ff玩但又怕重唔會帶來帶去．．．．
買af好喇，手動好重
Body金屬多
你要用m43 200 f2.8 同 ff 400 2.8比wo
講緊結構問題
例如咩結構問題?
正路應該細同輕過ff既200/2.8
係同400 2.8 比呀
計乜鳩等效，講緊同一焦距
200/2.8就係200/2.8啦
M43 sensor細先要x2咋
搵支ff既200/2.8插落去影出黎係咪一樣呀
9唔撚搭8
人地 Design 出黎係當等效 400 2.8 用，你要同 FF 70 - 200 比你用返 35-100 啦屌你，你先9唔撚搭8
答左我先啦
講緊同一個焦距呀成撚日等效等效
點解pana支20可以又輕又細過ff既20但係呢支就調返轉呀
明我講緊乜撚野未呀
我想問....咁比較有咩意義 點解唔係同等效比較
例如咩結構問題?
正路應該細同輕過ff既200/2.8
係同400 2.8 比呀
計乜鳩等效，講緊同一焦距
200/2.8就係200/2.8啦
M43 sensor細先要x2咋
搵支ff既200/2.8插落去影出黎係咪一樣呀
9唔撚搭8
人地 Design 出黎係當等效 400 2.8 用，你要同 FF 70 - 200 比你用返 35-100 啦屌你，你先9唔撚搭8
答左我先啦
講緊同一個焦距呀成撚日等效等效
點解pana支20可以又輕又細過ff既20但係呢支就調返轉呀
明我講緊乜撚野未呀
我想問....咁比較有咩意義 點解唔係同等效比較
想睇下塞左d咩入去姐
sorry 睇多次先見到你之前啲quote
dpreview上面都有討論呢個問題
我paste出嚟啦
A high F ratio lens require more optical elements because of the geometry.
The front optical elements will have twice the diameter as the F2.8 lens, and will be thicker in the middle as well. These elements will be 4x to 6x heavier.
The 200 F2.8 weighs 1.3 Kg, and the 300 F4 weighs 1.5 Kg - 71mm and 75mm diameter front elements.
A 200mm F1.4 would weigh at least 2 Kg, if not 2.5Kg.
It should come with a Sherpa attachment for easy transport.
dpreview上面都有討論呢個問題
我paste出嚟啦
I've heard the reason many FT lenses are so large is because they're actually FF lenses with built-in tele compressors. Obviously, any MFT "revision" would still be quite large, but since they're "actual" MFT lenses they'd still be lighter than their FF counterparts.
This was a story that went about some time ago, and is in some ways accurate but in others misinformed. So far as I know, no Four Thirds lenses were based on existing FF lenses with a focal reducer built in. However, some of them were clearly derived form such a starting point, at the front being pretty much identical to FF designs with the same angles of view and aperture. However, that is pretty much inevitable. The optical paths in front of the iris don't really depend a great deal on what's going on behind the iris, so most lenses with the same angle of view and aperture are going to look much the same, however much power is built into the back end of the lens. With a sensor half the size of FF, a micro Four Thirds lens needs twice the optical power at the back to squeeze the image down to half the size.
A high F ratio lens require more optical elements because of the geometry.
The front optical elements will have twice the diameter as the F2.8 lens, and will be thicker in the middle as well. These elements will be 4x to 6x heavier.
The 200 F2.8 weighs 1.3 Kg, and the 300 F4 weighs 1.5 Kg - 71mm and 75mm diameter front elements.
A 200mm F1.4 would weigh at least 2 Kg, if not 2.5Kg.
It should come with a Sherpa attachment for easy transport.
例如咩結構問題?
正路應該細同輕過ff既200/2.8
係同400 2.8 比呀
計乜鳩等效，講緊同一焦距
200/2.8就係200/2.8啦
M43 sensor細先要x2咋
搵支ff既200/2.8插落去影出黎係咪一樣呀
9唔撚搭8
人地 Design 出黎係當等效 400 2.8 用，你要同 FF 70 - 200 比你用返 35-100 啦屌你，你先9唔撚搭8
答左我先啦
講緊同一個焦距呀成撚日等效等效
點解pana支20可以又輕又細過ff既20但係呢支就調返轉呀
明我講緊乜撚野未呀
你咁樣比較係好有問題， 全世界都係講等效焦距黎比較。咁你買返ff鏡用啦屌
如果有性能良好既af接環用ff果d仲輕鬆
Canon果支先7xx g，就係想睇下pana用左咩結構咁足料
Speed Booster, x0.71, wide 過 APSC
點玩？
Adapter 接上之後焦變 wide, 光圈大多約一級
不過Viltrox間廠on99
一開盒六角匙螺絲批同個speedbooster擺埋一齊
搞到個環刮到甩漆
大陸嘢啲細節位做得差
不過雙十一平咗截
光學上正常就算
買唔起metabones
x1.42幾爽
部M43變咗APS片幅玩Nikon鏡
枝F1.2又可以用多一個stop
Speed Booster, x0.71, wide 過 APSC
點玩？
Adapter 接上之後焦變 wide, 光圈大多約一級
不過Viltrox間廠on99
一開盒六角匙螺絲批同個speedbooster擺埋一齊
搞到個環刮到甩漆
大陸嘢啲細節位做得差
不過雙十一平咗截
光學上正常就算
買唔起metabones
x1.42幾爽
部M43變咗APS片幅玩Nikon鏡
枝F1.2又可以用多一個stop
邊位成像得唔得
正路應該細同輕過ff既200/2.8
係同400 2.8 比呀
計乜鳩等效，講緊同一焦距
200/2.8就係200/2.8啦
M43 sensor細先要x2咋
搵支ff既200/2.8插落去影出黎係咪一樣呀
9唔撚搭8
人地 Design 出黎係當等效 400 2.8 用，你要同 FF 70 - 200 比你用返 35-100 啦屌你，你先9唔撚搭8
答左我先啦
講緊同一個焦距呀成撚日等效等效
點解pana支20可以又輕又細過ff既20但係呢支就調返轉呀
明我講緊乜撚野未呀
你咁樣比較係好有問題， 全世界都係講等效焦距黎比較。咁你買返ff鏡用啦屌
如果有性能良好既af接環用ff果d仲輕鬆
Canon果支先7xx g，就係想睇下pana用左咩結構咁足料
轉接環重量要計埋，雖然唔係好多gram
我都好想買部ff玩但又怕重唔會帶來帶去．．．．
買af好喇，手動好重
Body金屬多
x570+md 50mmF2上埋菲林同舊式天光filters都係六百幾克
三十幾年前既電子控制快門手動對焦手動過片菲林單反其實話重又唔係話重到無法接受
我都好想買部ff玩但又怕重唔會帶來帶去．．．．
買af好喇，手動好重
Body金屬多
x570+md 50mmF2上埋菲林同舊式天光filters都係六百幾克
三十幾年前既電子控制快門手動對焦手動過片菲林單反其實話重又唔係話重到無法接受
後期d機開始輕量化又多功能
我有部xd，插舊版mc鏡都幾足料，但質感同手感好正
好想入g9
好想入g9
g奶邊個唔想要
好想入g9
g奶邊個唔想要
機頂個moon仔好正 加支25 1.4 有排玩
好想入g9
g奶邊個唔想要
機頂個moon仔好正 加支25 1.4 有排玩
係咪可以熄芒淨係睇頂moon
好想入g9
g奶邊個唔想要
機頂個moon仔好正 加支25 1.4 有排玩
係咪可以熄芒淨係睇頂moon
g9咁大部，電力都應該有番咁上下