Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Pete Berry on June 11, 2012, 03:14:26 pm
-
Thanks, Michael, for your excellent, practical take on the E-M5, which has suddenly made my GH2 rather obsolete! The tabla rasa interface seems daunting to my aging brain, but the improved sensor DR and hi-ISO dynamics, live shadow/highlight "blinkies" with adjustable thresholds, MagLev 5-axis IBIS, enormous JPG DR using "auto-gradation", and electronic level all are conspiring to push me into upgrading. The GH2's RAW resolution seems to be the its only competitive stills feature now, aside from its fine array of hard controls.
One little innaccuracy, though: the superb Oly 4/3 50-200/2.8-3.5 becomes an f/4.0-5.0 with the EC-14 1.4x TC. And 5.6-7.1 with the 2x, which is still a very usable combination, even wide open.
Although I do all my printing from RAW, the JPG quality of the E-M5 is very appealing - esp. the huge possible in-camera DR, and even curves tweaking! Below is a comparison of the E-M5 in "auto-gradation" mode with the Panny GH2 and GX1, showing the straight highlight tone "curve" choice to the top (with iDR on low, but essentially the same on high). And for kicks, the D800 in extra-high ADL mode with it's rather curious curve, and a total of only 1/3 EV more DR than the Oly. How much more RAW DR is available would be interesting.
Pete
-
I also noticed that the dynamic range comes dangerously close to matching the D800 at base ISO. I am having a hard time not getting one of these little cameras. I am currently using a 7D, and in many ways this OMD is dangerously close to eclipsing the 7D in some basic IQ attributes (dynamic range and high ISO noise in particular)
Last fall I got a Pen E-PL3 with the 12mm and the 45mm prime lenses, and it is really quite amazing what you can get out of these cameras when you work carefully. The most problematic critique of that generation of Pen cameras was that the dynamic range was pretty inferior.
If I do get one, I may pass on the zoom and stick with primes for the MFT camera. I am not sure I could switch over to a EVF for all my work. Wildlife and bird photography with an EVF would be nearly impossible.
-
Several stores in both Canada and the US now have extra batteries. I received mine two weeks ago from B&H.
Dave S
-
I am also interested to hear that it has a "weak" anti-alias filter. I guess that is why it seems to out-resolve other cameras of similar resolutions. I am thinking this could be a great landscape camera. Doing some pixel peeping on DPReview's sample shot, it is amazing how well it holds up against a 7D or 5DII. I think it slightly exceeds the 7D resolution and comes close to the 5DII at base ISOs and isn't as far behind a 5DIII as you would expect. I tried comparing to the now legendary D800, but that is a pretty unfair contest. I suppose the OM-D would do better if they tested with one of the good primes, but the same could be said of the kit lens on almost any SLR.
The only thing that really bothers me about this cam is the permanent dependence on an EVF. There are bright conditions in which I have a hard enough time dealing with an optical viewfinder, much less an EVF.
-
If I do get one, I may pass on the zoom and stick with primes for the MFT camera. I am not sure I could switch over to a EVF for all my work. Wildlife and bird photography with an EVF would be nearly impossible.
A little more difficult, possibly, with EVF - particularly with back-lit subjects in a confused background, as I found with the attached Little Green heron (at 100%) on dense lily pads recently. But it was very difficult to see with naked eye also. Some highlights blown that the E-M5 probably would have spared. Over-brightness of the EVF is NOT a problem, as it compensates for both ultra-high and low light situations in its full-time metered live view. You can blow it out in Man. mode, of course.
BIF work, though, is much more reliable with PD-AF DSLR's, although I've caught a rather manic Peregrine Falcon guarding it's nest using the GH2 with the lightning-fast S-AF of the Panny 100-300.
Link to my Albums in DPRev, several of which are birding with GH1&2, using Oly 50-200/2.8-3.5 w/ EC-20 2x for 800mm EFL (GH1, MF only), and more recently GH2 w/100-300 handheld, as well as MF with 480mm true apo f/6 scope on tripod:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/2779399177/albums
Pete
-
I am also interested to hear that it has a "weak" anti-alias filter. I guess that is why it seems to out-resolve other cameras of similar resolutions. I am thinking this could be a great landscape camera. Doing some pixel peeping on DPReview's sample shot, it is amazing how well it holds up against a 7D or 5DII. I think it slightly exceeds the 7D resolution and comes close to the 5DII at base ISOs and isn't as far behind a 5DIII as you would expect. I tried comparing to the now legendary D800, but that is a pretty unfair contest. I suppose the OM-D would do better if they tested with one of the good primes, but the same could be said of the kit lens on almost any SLR.
Back when DPRev was quantitating both JPG and RAW res., the 12mp GH1 was a revolution in per-pixel sharpness, eclipsing every FF and crop sensor of less than 18mp -even the 16mp 1.3X crop 1D-IV - and barely surpassed by the 18mp 7D. PopPhoto is the only measurer now AFAIK, but the 16mp GH2 takes it a step further, passing the D700 handily, and within a gnat's eyelash of the 18mp M-9, which has no A-A filter. I've not seen any results for the E-M5, but comparing it in DPRev's widget, the RAW images are very close, with possibly a little edge to the GH2 in finest feather detail - certainly insignificant in printing. Except at ISOs above 3200, I think it's safe to say that the E-M5's overall performance is the equal of anything out there 18mp or lower, with the exception of C-AF tracking ability in high-speed action work.
The lens DPRev uses for all it's m4/3 (with adapter) and 4/3 camera tests is the remarkably sharp and flat-field Oly 4/3 Zuiko 50mm/2.0 macro lens, which certainly contributes to GH series and E-M5's high resolution. Unfortunatley, focus is very slow on the m4/3 bodies, pretty much limiting it's use.
Pete
-
Hi Pete
I took a look at your bird pix as I'm interested in getting the Panasonic 100-300. I already have the OM-D which is delightful. Birding is just a casual interest but previously I've been using my D700/Sigma 150-500. Carrying around a rig like this on a hike where I might see something interesting is just a torment which I'm less and less inclined to endure. The Sigma lens isn't too great either, it might as well be a fixed F8, but I've got used to it and it can produce acceptable results if you keep the shutter speed up; the OS is pretty useless. The D700 AF of course, is excellent. So my thinking is to trade in the Sigma lens for the Panasonic 100-300. The Oly 150-300 seems to be marginally better (not everyone agrees, unsurprisingly) and a bit lighter, but also slower and much more expensive.
Since buying the OM-D a few weeks ago I've regularly been fantasising about dumping all my Nikon gear. The range of MFT lenses available makes it almost possible to directly substitute for everything except the 2.8 zooms. With the exception of the 14-24, substituting these for F4 equivalents isn't inconceivable. I do quite a lot of VR pano work (D700/16mm AIS) and Samyang now have a 7.5/3.5 MFT lens which makes yet another of my reasons for keeping the Nikon gear less compelling.
I'd be interested to hear more of your overall impressions of using the 100-300.
Roy
-
The article was interesting and worth a read. I've openly never supported 4/3 or micro 4/3 because I feel the DOF situation is a disadvantage too far (APS-C an acceptable compromise) I also don't think it looks a lot like an OM camera either..but start to tire of the "retro camera theme" too from various makers. Retro is there for a reason (good handling), not just to aid marketing and look good.
I would also point out the lack of on-board flash is a disadvantage (not for the flash but the wireless trigger ability) UK price is also terrible at £1000 odd body only which is the same as a pro level DSLR. It just doesn't add up to me. But it is nice to see an improved sensor.
I still have no confidence in Olympus as a company not because of scandal (yes that damaged it beyond repair to me), but original OM users got left in the cold, normal 4/3 is essentially a one camera peace meal offering and a dead end, which is exactly as I predicted a number of years ago. I'm not slating micro 4/3 for the sake of it, but I can't see how it's going to challenge APS-C in the long run. It can do ok I think with the Pen models and I completely get folks buying a good deal blowout micro 4/3 body, yes very much better than tiny sensor compact. The OM-D on the other hand seems a little odd in the overall picture, yes micro 4/3 did need a higher end camera..but let's not kid ourselves this is a revival for 4/3, more a side step and with much talk about a FF Nikon bomb dropping very soon, we could at last be looking at a FF rampage at a more reasonable price.
If that does happen, it won't be a nice place to be for the smaller formats.
-
Hi Pete
I took a look at your bird pix as I'm interested in getting the Panasonic 100-300. I already have the OM-D which is delightful. Birding is just a casual interest but previously I've been using my D700/Sigma 150-500. Carrying around a rig like this on a hike where I might see something interesting is just a torment which I'm less and less inclined to endure. The Sigma lens isn't too great either, it might as well be a fixed F8, but I've got used to it and it can produce acceptable results if you keep the shutter speed up; the OS is pretty useless. The D700 AF of course, is excellent. So my thinking is to trade in the Sigma lens for the Panasonic 100-300. The Oly 150-300 seems to be marginally better (not everyone agrees, unsurprisingly) and a bit lighter, but also slower and much more expensive.
Since buying the OM-D a few weeks ago I've regularly been fantasising about dumping all my Nikon gear. The range of MFT lenses available makes it almost possible to directly substitute for everything except the 2.8 zooms. With the exception of the 14-24, substituting these for F4 equivalents isn't inconceivable. I do quite a lot of VR pano work (D700/16mm AIS) and Samyang now have a 7.5/3.5 MFT lens which makes yet another of my reasons for keeping the Nikon gear less compelling.
I'd be interested to hear more of your overall impressions of using the 100-300.
Roy
While the Panny 100-300 is not a great lens by any measure, it's the best compromise at the moment of price, performance, size/weight, and super-fast S-AF. The negatives include unimpressive build with rather ratchety zoom action of plastic sticking on plastic, a bit soft at 300/5.6, but sharpening up nicely by f/8, and not great OIS. To get consistent results, a tripod (which I detest!) or shooting above 1/500th - needed also to stop twitchy bird motion - preferably higher. It's quite sharp in the 100-250 range, even wide open. I would expect the E-M5's vaunted MagLev IBIS to stabilize it more than it's OIS on my GH2. And I can carry the slightly over 2# GH2/100-300 all day and hardly notice it on a BlackRapid cross chest strap. Ultimate IQ should handily trump your Nikon rig with substantially more pixels on the target at 600mm EFL and 16mp.
Pete
-
Since Pete brought up the GH2 with the 100-300, here's a recent handheld shot of oystercatchers, a few godwits, and a couple of stilts from a New Zealand trip. Looks pretty fine printed on 17 x 22.
-
I'm not sure the bird pics you are showing are doing much to convince me that this can be a viable wildlife setup. The images just don't seem to me that sharp and bright. The best ones I see the night herons. Peter, the oystercatchers look slightly oversharpened to me, particularly apparent in the grasses behind the slightly too contrasty birds.
Here is one I think is acceptably sharp, and it was taken with a 50D and 100-400 lens which is not considered the sharpest tele zoom out there.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/trailpixie/4323354821/in/set-72157623834758040/lightbox/
I still think the OM-D EM-5 looks like a fabulous travel camera, but to me it doesn't yet look like a fabulous wildlife camera. What I am really trying to figure out is how well it would work as a landscape and panoramic stitching camera.
-
it's interesting that I have almost the same set-up as Michael for the same uses. The D800 twins for big and the OMD for travel. I am in the middle of selling off my Nikon DX gear because the OMD is so good at the same job with a much smaller footprint. I am in Mexico for the next week and love walking around with the OMD but prefer the 14-140 as my go to zoom. A little faster than the 12-50 and a much bigger range. Balances better with the grip. Sorry Michael, I love those art filters and probably overplay with them and I have always believed that Olympus had great JPEGs ( although I shoot RAW)
-
IMO for casual "wildlife" shots it's okay, as well as any other camera for that matter. The problem with the EM-5 and M4/3 in general are the slow telephoto lenses. I believe this issue will change in the future with the addition of a proper adapter for 4/3 lenses or actually making a proper micro 4/3 lens with a suitable aperture size.
Take the 75-300 for example which is the one I tested for birding.
*First there is the size. Even with IS set to on, these small lenses are not easy to keep still even on a tripod.
*Aperture, 6.7 at the long end is just to small. Shooting wildlife, you will be at the long end of the lens for a large percentage of the time. The problem is it is difficult to achieve focus at lower light levels which is also where you will want to live most of the time. At these lower light levels the lens/camera just doesn't like to focus quickly. I recall having to zoom out to around 150mm in order to get the thing to focus. Not good for a wildlife lens.
*Focus box size. Difficult to focus on the eye with a large focus box, even at the small setting.
*Where's the lens hood?
*Even though it is water resistant, do you really want to drag this beautiful camera around in the field? It's just not a camera you even want to set gingerly on the ground.
*Don't even think about using your 4/3 lenses for wildlife unless your subject is dead or a flamingo at the zoo. Even if you wait the ~2 seconds to autofocus it is not as accurate as it should be.
That's my take. I ended up sending the 75-300 back because of the above issues.
-
The problem with the EM-5 and M4/3 in general are the slow telephoto lenses. I believe this issue will change in the future with the addition of a proper adapter for 4/3 lenses or actually making a proper micro 4/3 lens with a suitable aperture size.
There are m4/3 adapters for almost everything, including Leica R lenses, Olympus OM and regular 4/3 lenses, and Canon, etc.
-
What I mean by a proper adapter is one that will autofocus at the native speed of the originating lens. I can put my 300f2.8 4/3 lens on my OMD with an adapter but focus is too slow.
There are m4/3 adapters for almost everything, including Leica R lenses, Olympus OM and regular 4/3 lenses, and Canon, etc.
-
as Michael listed in his review, there are excellent 4/3 long (and fast) lenses that can be used with the OM-D, they're just expensive. autofocus for action will still not be up to SLR standards so i have a tough time with the idea of spending Nikon or Canon money on long lenses (which are pretty nearly Canon and Nikon size and weight) for the OM-D.
-
I really don't get the cavilling about the performance of these slow MFT long zooms. I mean, what are the alternatives for anyone who can't justify buying a DSLR systems principally configured for occasional "wildlife" use (I'm still trying to figure out why the word requires quotes...)? I mean, I've tried another "cheap" alternative - and quotes are appropriate here, at least for for the majority of humanity, I believe. So what do we buy? A D7000, one of the Nikon super-expensive fast super-telephotos (with a TC), a gimbal head and a grotesquely overpriced Gitzo tripod? I'm not really likely to take that for a day's hiking even if I could afford such a system for occasional use. I've done my time walking 15 miles on mountain tracks loaded down with gear. Now I get time off for good behaviour.
My own motivation for taking snaps of wildlife is entertainment. A lot of people are happy to spot birds and just jot down the species, time and place. I'm not that much of a birder but it's a pleasure to collect and accumulate a visual record. In the unlikely event that one of these snaps approaches "art" (it's catching...) all well and good.
After the last few years of using a D700 and a range of lenses of different types and weights, it's huge relief to have a well designed system that weighs so little and offers such a wide range of available lenses. As for the shallow DOF "problem" (there we go again) I'd say that lack of DOF has b*ggered up more of my snaps than an excess of the same. Like long exposures on moving water, super-shallow DOF has become a cliché even if it's a cliché that sometimes affords attractive results.
The OM-D is a really enjoyable little camera to use. I think it gives very decent results but of course it won't satisfy a lot of people. The older I get, the easier I am to please, particularly if it involves reduced weight... up to a point, anyway.
Roy
-
I'm not sure the bird pics you are showing are doing much to convince me that this can be a viable wildlife setup. The images just don't seem to me that sharp and bright. The best ones I see the night herons. Peter, the oystercatchers look slightly oversharpened to me, particularly apparent in the grasses behind the slightly too contrasty birds.
Here is one I think is acceptably sharp, and it was taken with a 50D and 100-400 lens which is not considered the sharpest tele zoom out there.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/trailpixie/4323354821/in/set-72157623834758040/lightbox/
I still think the OM-D EM-5 looks like a fabulous travel camera, but to me it doesn't yet look like a fabulous wildlife camera. What I am really trying to figure out is how well it would work as a landscape and panoramic stitching camera.
That's a very nice shot of the little raptor, Marc. You did have the significant advantage of a bright blue day with frontal lighting to brighten it up. Unfortunately all the shots in my albums linked above suffer either from back or severe side-lighting (night herons on pond with 100-300, GH2), or shadowed locations (night herons on the nest) shot at Pt. Lobos, CA, and it's coastal fog, at ISO 400, with 12mp GH1, and the Oly 4/3 50-200 plus 2x TC for 400mm/7.1. These at nominal 5.6 for f/11.2 for the DOF needed. The head ranger there, who shoots wildlife with a 5D/100-400, was quited taken with the quality of the 17x22 prints of the nesting series I donated, which hang in the docent's office.
If there's a better long tele zoom out there than the Canon 100-400, as old as it is, I'm not familiar with it - certainly surpasses Nikon's 80-400 in the tests I've seen. Except maybe the Oly 4/3 90-250/2.8 at $6000 and 7.25#, which has only the 12mp Oly 4/3 E-5 or older 10mp bodies capable of fast AF with it. The Canon 400mm/5.6 prime I used to shoot with has a flatter field and slightly sharper center than the 100-400, but not by a great margin, and unfortunately lacks IS.
Although I enjoy nature photography, I lack the passion to do what's necessary to be great at it - studying the subjects habits and habitat, returning as often as necessary for the optimum lighting, and most importantly, getting close enough with whatever equipment you choose to fill as much of the frame as you wish with whatever equipment you have chosen. I've seen enough quality 300mm 100% crops from the GH2/100-300 to convince me that it's me, not the equipment (except when I refuse to carry a tripod), that's the limiting factor.
An excellent fast-focusing m4/3 300mm/4.0 with dedicated 1.4x TC for 420/5.6, or 400/5.6 - with OIS if Panny - would be a god-send for guys like me who would like more reach for our GH2 or E-M5. Such a lens without IS would tip the balance to the E-M5, for sure.
And short of monster FF sensor bodies, I'm convinced that the fine range of m4/3 prime and zoom quality lenses, along with the outstanding sensor qualities of the E-M5, will go head-to-head with anything out there for landscape photography.
Pete
-
Here is one I think is acceptably sharp, and it was taken with a 50D and 100-400 lens which is not considered the sharpest tele zoom out there.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/trailpixie/4323354821/in/set-72157623834758040/lightbox/
FWIW, the pictured raptor is a red-shouldered hawk
Mark
-
Hi folks,
Is there anyone here in a position to compare the Olympus with the Fuji X Pro1, specifically concerning image quality and fast focus? I've been using a Fuji with its three lenses since the camera came out - image quality tremendous, high ISO fantastic, and so on but when it comes to focus the jury is still out in my case.
The issue is well documented all over the web. Telling yourself it's a quirky camera (as many do) when you've just missed a shot you should have nailed in the street is little consolation, and that's before you even think about the price you paid for the privilege. I'd very much appreciate any feedback because if I thought the Olympus came anywhere near the Fuji image quality, I'd be strongly tempted to switch. I keep hoping for a meaningful Fuji firmware update. but in my waters I feel they're joined at the hip with the focus and anyway, life is too short at my age to be hanging around for a fix that may or may not come.
Many thanks,
Seamus
-
You can check the studio comparisons at DPR or IR. Be aware the Fuji appears to be using fairly heavy handed RAW NR at the highest ISOs. The odd CFA pattern of the Fuji also requires blurring chroma channels in the demosaicing. This means even at equal chroma NR settings the Fuji effectively has more chroma NR applied and lower chroma resolution compared to "normal" Bayer CFA patterns. All that said, the Fuji is a larger sensor and a very good one.
Given the wide differences in their required demosaicing expect different answers based on subject and processing. LR processing of X1 Pro is not great, the in camera JPEGs are surprisingly good. So a RAW shooter might not like the X1, but a JPEG shooter would be happier. The X1 Pro, especially in RAW processing, gives jaw droppingly awful "watercolor" artifacts even at base ISO for landscapes and yet seems to do really well at high ISO on architecture and what not.
So as far as IQ goes, "it depends" is going to be the answer and take with a grain of salt anyone rating one above the other for all uses.
As far as AF goes it is wicked fast on the E-M5 with most all lenses in single shot focus. Faster than most DSLRs - honestly really, really fast. This does depend on the lens though (just like with DSLRs) but most all the recent lenses are extremely quick to focus. The 20/1.7 is probably the one that is noticeably slower than the others. Also, as you are probably aware none of these are great at C-AF in burst shooting. DSLR still wins there.
Finally, keep in mind I haven't had the opportunity to handle an X1Pro so I can't comment on it much. I have the E-M5 and other m43 cameras so I can comment on their focus. And I've been following a lot of interesting blogs and posts regarding demosaicing development for the X1 Pro and hence my warning about "it depends". It really appears to, so be sure whomever you are talking to or the samples you are looking at match what it is you are shooting and the processing chain you use. It sounds like you have a lot of X1 Pro experience already and are happy with the IQ for your shooting, so mainly you just need to find some E-M5 samples similar to what you now shoot on the X1 Pro.
Good luck!
-
Forget the Fuji, let's talk about a FF D600 at a price that might not be much more than the Olympus is now. I was talking to a mirrorless fan and he felt the OM-D was not bad, but it would really have caused shock waves had it been a FF 35mm size sensor. We know that's not going to happen, but IMO it is again the most obvious mistake for Olympus to box themselves into the smaller format. Whilst it might do fine for a not hugely expensive range of Pen models, if FF really does come down to more affordable levels it spells huge danger for any ILC higher end models.
Better priced FF DSLR's could ravage the 4/3 sensor format and they won't be able to keep up with the much bigger sensor, nor the pixel density either.
-
Barry,
The so-called mirrorless or Compact System Cameras are about just that – being compact. Not just smaller and lighter bodies but more importantly smaller lenses as well. The companies that are in this segment know very well what they're doing.
A Full Frame camera is, by definition (and the laws of physics), a large camera and is no threat to the new CSC.
Michael
-
Barry,
What Michael said!
And along those lines, technology for FF sensors is not the issue. If you want a smallish FF system (it won't be truly small if it is FF regardless) that can appeal to a large enough market the technology limit is optics, not sensors. One of the reasons m43 is producing outstanding lenses in extremely compact packages at reasonable prices is that they are at a size that allows lower cost mass producible aspheric elements to be used extensively. Exotic glass in almost every lens as well. Double the diameters of the elements and things get astronomically more expensive if you try to keep the size and weight down. Once the elements get too large (and a factor of two is a gigantic change in size) you are left with only very expensive asphere manufacturing processes.
And before we go down the predictable path of Leica and other RF comparisons it is worth noting those lenses are typically very expensive and also MF. You can't just "convert" them into AF designs. For CDAF systems you need focus to be controlled by a very low mass focus group, something no RF lens was designed for.
I'm not saying a FF mirrorless wouldn't be a wonderful thing! I am saying it is no threat to CSC - even if the FF sensor prices come down the optics will be a mixture of too big and too expensive for the vast majority of the CSC market. Could prove to be a threat to my wallet though...
KEn
-
Forget the Fuji, let's talk about a FF D600 at a price that might not be much more than the Olympus is now.
Why? I would rather talk about actual cameras that we know somethng about rather than speculate in an information vacuum about imagined small, light, cheap FF unicorns. Never mind the endless speculation about sudden drops in 35mm format DSLR pricing (which instead is about the same now as it was when the original 5D and D700 arrived): Michael has made the far better point of basic physics: compact, light camera systems need compact light lenses, and the only way for 35mm format to match the current mirrorless systems for size with its longer focal lengths would be with proportionately higher minimum aperture ratios (long, thin lenses?), losing any advantage in low light performance or shallow DOF options.
P.S. I agree with Ken above whose post appeared while I was typing: I look forward to mirrorless in 35mm format (”post SLR"), but with quite different size, weight, price and performance trade-offs than Micro Four Thirds.
-
Well one person's small is another one's large. I personally find a D4 a big lump to carry around and way too big. Some folks feel the D7000 is too small to be comfortable either.
I'm not sure how big this new Nikon is going to be, maybe around the size of a D7000, maybe a bit more. To some small means a genuinely small compact you put in a shirt pocket.
Point is size is not a matter we can really cut and dry/black and white in any way shape or form. But in terms of pricing where the OM-D is..well it could be a dangerous place. If FF creeps into even lower bodies over time a bit bigger or not it could be a hard nut to crack.
And I peer over at my budget Minolta Dynax 5 which is really rather compact for a FF SLR camera..and wonder if they could do a FF version that size. I suspect they could get near to that.
-
Barry, you are quite amazing: three replies to your post point out that one important issue for a compact camera system is having compact lenses, and yet you completely ignore that and talk only about body size. Of course, a 35mm format system _can_ be compact within certain severe constraints on lenses, like limiting focal lengths to not much longer than normal, or accepting very slow minimum aperture ratios at longer focal lengths and thus cancelling most of the advantages promissed by a larger format. That would satisfy some people, in the way that a Leica M body and lenses does, but a lot of people looking at CSCs are not attracted by those lens choice constraints.
P. S. Not that price alone is going to change the compactness advantage of a smaller format, but I am curious: what is your reason for expecting Nikon or anyone else to break substantially away from the roughly $3000 price of entry to 36x24mm format digital that has held steady since the 5D hit $2999 in late 2005? "I read a rumor on the internet" is not a satisfactory answer!
Well one person's small is another one's large. I personally find a D4 a big lump to carry around and way too big. Some folks feel the D7000 is too small to be comfortable either.
I'm not sure how big this new Nikon is going to be, maybe around the size of a D7000, maybe a bit more. To some small means a genuinely small compact you put in a shirt pocket.
-
Jokes aside (I can't take the post above that seriously sorry)
I'm not ignoring anything..but to those who feel micro 4/3 lenses are "really small" they're not. This isn't breaking news to anyone who's used a 35mm rangefinder camera, which genuinely does have small lenses, with a FF sensor and it sits very close to the film/sensor plane too. Micro 4/3 lenses are smaller than DSLR equivalents, but they're not remotely as small as they could be considering the smaller sensor area. The only really small lenses are on the Pentax Q, which has a sensor even smaller than my finepix does!
As I commented before on NEX, the lenses are comically big (IMO) and the real advantage to a genuinely compact system is lost in NEX (IMO at least) same for Samsung's NX series some not that small lenses there either bar a few pancake ones. Which brings me onto the real meat..you either pancake lens it, or do a Pentax limited type (more compact lenses) strategy. They are pretty small..but may have compromises in other ways (speed/cost/performance)
Yes the OM-D body is pretty compact as anyone who's had a grab of one will know. But I'd hardly call the 12-50mm F3.5-6.3 a shirt pocket lens either! So what's the point in having a small body if many of the lenses are not that compact? You tell me. Some folks are saying the accessory grip is a "must have" because the body is a bit "too small" as above, define what the ideal is for xyz buyer?
As for the "affordable FF" we shall wait and see. I do think though that there might be some movement here..not that APS-C is going away for many folks, but a genuinely affordable FF body will have a big impact in the DSLR Market. I personally do think that it could cause problems for higher end mirrorless models..whilst size is a primary factor for some, it isn't for others. If you had a choice between a good FF DSLR for £1000, or the OM-D a lot of folks would pass on the Olympus, which I think is a bit overpriced really in European markets (Oly's currency conversion is 1:1 which is way off the mark)
-
[1] I'm not ignoring anything..but to those who feel micro 4/3 lenses are "really small" they're not. This isn't breaking news to anyone who's used a 35mm rangefinder camera, which genuinely does have small lenses ...
[2] Micro 4/3 lenses are smaller than DSLR equivalents
[3] As I commented before on NEX, the lenses are comically big (IMO) and the real advantage to a genuinely compact system is lost in NEX (IMO at least) same for Samsung's NX series some not that small lenses there either bar a few pancake ones.
[4] As for the "affordable FF" we shall wait and see. I do think though that there might be some movement here ...
Barry:
[1] did you miss my comment about Leica M? That 36x24mm format system achieves reasonable lens compactness by having no zooms and very limited telephoto reach options: as I said, many people will not accept such constraints on the lens system but instead want options like zoom lenses and substantial telephoto reach.
[2] In case there is any confusion, the size advantage of a system like m43 is in large part from the shorter focal lengths needed compared to 36x24mm format, with the size savings of non-SLR lens designs compared to SLR designs a nice but perhaps secondary factor. So compare m43 lenses to a 36x24mm format DSLR lens of twice the focal lengths when you consider the size difference. That is, since you were speculating about a less expensive 36x24mm DSLR, it is lenses for that format that matter in this comparison, not just DSLR lenses in an unspecified format. For example, name your favorite compact 24-100mm lens to compare to the Olympus 12-50, or a 28-84 to compare to the folding 14-42 lenses for m43. Or compact options like 28-300, 80-300, 90-350, 90-400, 150-600 or 200-600.
[3] I agree: the size of the zoom lenses for NEX is a mystery, and a disappointment for those of who want the flexibility of zoom lenses and decent telephoto reach options in a compact system. But the topic here is m43, not the failings of NEX or NX.
[4] Yes, I thought that this was the extent of your evidence. Strange then that you base so much of your warnings of hard times for m43 on the basis of that imaginary competitor.
-
That imaginary competitor is quite close so they say! I've no idea if it will be as affordable as they are suggesting I suppose we will have to see how that pans out.
I've said many times before and continue to this day. 4/3 is format which has nowhere to run..and that was proved conclusively with the demise of the DSLR 4/3 cameras. And I never once retracted that statement I made years ago..that 4/3 can't compete v APS-C DSLR's.
How it fares with ILC's? Well it will be much better suited to that. But the market is getting more crowded, Canon are sure to join in and things can get a lot more heated when that happens. Micro 4/3 might well have enough traction to stick it out for a while.
4/3 would be ideal for non lens change compacts, the sensor is big enough to distance it from those ho hum tiny ones.
Personally since the OM disaster of film days, and with 4/3 DSLR users being essentially left to fend for themselves, I would be highly suspicious of Olympus in the longer term. Being dumped once is bad enough, twice starts to reveal a pattern. Mix in some corporate fraud on an epic scale, and it's a company I don't want to do business with.
-
Getting away from speculation about market preferences and future viability of the MFT format...
I share the niggle about the battery charger having a big-ugly cable. I partially ameliorated this problem with my E-PL3 by getting one of these expensive cables.
http://www.amazon.com/Notebook-Power-Cord-Figure-Eight-Plug/dp/B000BSLS0W
...and this looks even better.
http://www.amazon.com/SF-Cable-Adapter-60320-C7-receptacle/dp/B004OGXY72/ref=pd_cp_e_0
-
I have to agree with Barry. Irrespective of how many here insist he's wrong, some of these companies may soon be headed for a new round of trouble.
The OM-D is impressive (most of it anyway) and combining it with a few small lenses sure beats carrying around 20-40 lbs. of C/N gear. As appealing as small ILCs are, and they are extremely appealing to me, I've never been willing to enter the 4/3 (m or not) market; I just don't see it as practicable long term and I can't forget the disgruntled Oly users that were abandoned in the 4/3 market.
I know people will cite that the m4/3-4/3 market is still with us and getting better, but the possibility of its demise is real (see Pentax FF rumors). Hence, I'm more inclined to buy an APS-C solution than 4/3 or m4/3 because it just makes more sense long term - and the sensors are dirt cheap to produce.
As with film, sensor real estate matters, and if Nikon releases a D600 at $1,600 or something south of $2k US, I believe people will buy it in large numbers, putting pressure on all markets, and *possibly* the Oly/Pen/Panny/et. al m4/3 markets. I realize that it's (D600) not offering ILC size advantages, but for those that want good/great IQ in a small'ish package, it could attract many people. The other effect is that pricing pressure makes the cropped APS-C offerings cheaper and more attractive.
The real question is how many formats are required, which provide better results, and what are the corresponding prices? I'm betting on APS-C to be the survivor, but we should all know more in the Fall.
-
I am not sure why everyone is so worried about another format and its viability. Yes, of course there are business cycles and technical innovations that leave people holding a bag of worthless lenses. It happens. It will happen again; perhaps with MFT.
The market is certainly seeing some interesting upheaval. The recent phenomenon of half-decent camera phones is decimating the ranks of the point and shoot cameras, so they need to do something transformative. The high-end (high margin) DSLR is moving down market with reports (and rumors) of everyone and their brother offering a consumer (prosumer) FF DSLR. These are big cameras with big lenses.
I do believe there is a credibly big market for interchangeable lens cameras in a smaller form-factor. Whether that is APS-C or MFT, isn't important to most consumers, particularly as the image quality difference becomes negligible. There are more MFT options right now in this tweener-sized camera. With Canon and Nikon's tepid entries into larger format compact cameras (so far) and their unwillingness to cannibalize their very profitable DSLR and lens markets, they have been slow, slow, slow to move. This is what is great about the market for cameras. The insurgents here--Olympus, Sony, Panasonic--have less to lose by doing something different in these smaller formats. We may see more competition on the front of features and usability as the image quality difference becomes smaller. It never fails to amaze me how much we will obsess over very small differences in image quality when 90% of the public can't see the difference. But what is more amazing is that the opinions of super-pixel-peepers become the dogma and anyone who buys anything besides the IQ leader of the moment feels like the are a crazy heretic.
By all means critique the EM-5 and its IQ and features and build quality and everything. I think it is valid for you to not buy it because you think the future of the format is questionable. I am considering converting my RAW files DNG for my Olympus gear for just that reason. But with all that said, I think it is pointless to think the market is too crowded with players for them to survive. If anything, the EM-5 should be an indicator that Olympus can survive...now if they can get their executives in line, that is another problem.