Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: Chrisso26 on November 19, 2013, 09:45:33 pm
-
Hello. Not a complete newbie. I was registered to the forum in an older incarnation.
Anyway……
I'm in a quandary regarding future lens investment.
I'm an amateur, not so prolific photographer. I have a Nex7 and love it. I grade raw in Capture One 7 and am very happy with my images.
I sometimes shoot video as an offshoot to my main profession. So I'm quasi-amateur filmmaker. I was using a Panasonic GH1 and have recently bought a Blackmagic Pocket Camera.
I'm getting on well with the Pocket camera, so no complaints there. In fact I love using both my Nex7 for stills and the Pocket for motion. Both are very small and relatively easy to use.
Here's the thing. I'm aware lenses are a better long term investment than bodies. The Nex is 'e' system, the Pocket is M4/3rds.
I've been using Leica M lenses on my Nex, but they don't look so good on the Pocket camera video. I have no 'e' format lenses and only have one M4/3rds lens (Voigtlander 25mm).
I've been lusting after the Ziess Touit lenses for Nex, but I need to invest in a couple of usable lenses for Pocket.
It kind of makes financial sense to ditch the Nex and buy an equivalent M4/3rds camera for stills. Stills and video using the same format lenses - with a couple of extras like the Leica M on adapters.
Q: Is there anything as good as the Nex7 in M4/3rds? I love it's small size and weight. GH3 is too big and bulky.
Any other advice regarding this fork in the road?
-
Short list on cameras: Olympus OM-D E-M1, Olympus OM-D Em-5, Olympus E-P5, Panasonic GX7. As far as image quality goes, probably not equal to the Nex 7, but very useable, depending on what you shoot.
What you will notice with M43 is there is a little less latitude in the lights and darks, and just a tiny bit more noise. I do miss the 14-bit RAW (Nikon D7000) that the APS Sony chips have. But, it depends on exactly how challenging and critical you will be.
-
I had the Panasonic and Oly offerings, both quite easy to use. IMHO, the NEX 7 is several steps above, due to the sensor and to the processing engine. On top of that, use of major brand lenses is a VERY big deal. I use Leica lenses with it, and
one can really tell the difference.
-
What you will notice with M43 is there is a little less latitude in the lights and darks, and just a tiny bit more noise. I do miss the 14-bit RAW (Nikon D7000) that the APS Sony chips have. But, it depends on exactly how challenging and critical you will be.
Just to note: a 14-bit analog-to-digital converter will give you, in theory if not always in practice, finer tonal gradation within a sensor's dynamic range than a 12-bit ADC. But it has no effect one way or the other on that dynamic range. (The quantizing process itself may discard or lose some gradation, some DR or even some of each. But that happens, if it happens, post sensor.) The technology allows for sensors with very high DR but coarse gradation, along with the opposite. Think of Kodachrome: limited DR (5 stops or so) but exceptionally fine gradation within that DR. Or negative film: high DR but generally coarser gradation. Current commercial sensors are somewhere in-between.
-Dave-
-
Hi
I am pretty sure any bit depth beyond DR is just wasted. Another fact seems to be that ADC-s are noisy, that is the basic fact behind the poor DR of Canon DSLRs. The sensor is first class but the ADCs are noisy. The last bits on 16 and 14 bit ADC-s are just noise. This is the reason Canons work that well at high ISO, the signal is amplified above the noise floor of the ADC, but doing that the voltage exceeds the range of the ADC so you need to reduce exposure to avoid clipping.
On chip ADC have much lower noise and can utilise the DR of the sensor fully, at low ISOs. At high ISO-s they work like an off chip ADC.
One of the reasons on chip ADC are better is that there are many of them, something like 6000 on the Sony Exmoor vs. 2-8 with off chip ADC-s. That really means that on chip ADCs can have 750- 3000 times the sampling time compared with off chip ADCs, a great advantage.
Best regards
Erik
Just to note: a 14-bit analog-to-digital converter will give you, in theory if not always in practice, finer tonal gradation within a sensor's dynamic range than a 12-bit ADC. But it has no effect one way or the other on that dynamic range. (The quantizing process itself may discard or lose some gradation, some DR or even some of each. But that happens, if it happens, post sensor.) The technology allows for sensors with very high DR but coarse gradation, along with the opposite. Think of Kodachrome: limited DR (5 stops or so) but exceptionally fine gradation within that DR. Or negative film: high DR but generally coarser gradation. Current commercial sensors are somewhere in-between.
-Dave-
-
Interesting, thanks.
The size and quality of the Nex7 is just perfect for me. I guess I'll just have to use it with my Leica lenses, although my widest is 28mm, which is why i was eyeing up the new Zeiss Touit's.
-
IMHO, the NEX 7 is several steps above, due to the sensor and to the processing engine.
several steps ? nothing more than is justified by a bigger die... you forgot that Sony Imaging rarely can get the same bit of performance from Sony Semiconductor sensors as can others (Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, you name it)
(http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/6947/2lkq.jpg)
-
Just to note: a 14-bit analog-to-digital converter will give you, in theory if not always in practice, finer tonal gradation within a sensor's dynamic range than a 12-bit ADC. But it has no effect one way or the other on that dynamic range. (The quantizing process itself may discard or lose some gradation, some DR or even some of each. But that happens, if it happens, post sensor.) The technology allows for sensors with very high DR but coarse gradation, along with the opposite. Think of Kodachrome: limited DR (5 stops or so) but exceptionally fine gradation within that DR. Or negative film: high DR but generally coarser gradation. Current commercial sensors are somewhere in-between.
-Dave-
Yeah, I guess I didn't separate those two thoughts very well. I know 14-bit doesn't apply to DR, but it does apply to your ability to process the photo in post. You can push it just a bit further without banding.
[hijack]Of course, there is one thing that has always puzzled me. If you know that your scene has a lower DR, say in studio, somewhere around 8 stops, wouldn't you be better with a sensor that has closer to that DR? Just like we would pick a film with more latitude if we know we are shooting in a scene that requires it. Of course, that could just be fanciful hogwash my mind made up.[/hijack]
-
Yeah, I guess I didn't separate those two thoughts very well. I know 14-bit doesn't apply to DR, but it does apply to your ability to process the photo in post. You can push it just a bit further without banding.
normal software can do proper dither instead of relying on noise (because that is what your 2+ bits are in those cases) for that purpose
-
Back to the question…..
Is there anything in the M4/3rds product line that matches NEX7 for image quality and ergonomics/size?
-
I use M43. I love it. I have shot some video that has come out really nicely. The NEX system is excellent and has some really good lenses.
...BUT...
I think both systems are a bad investment. It is more than probable that one or both of these systems will be defunct within five years. Sony has shifted gears again toward this new mirrorless full frame format and Both the major M43 manufacturers have a very small and unprofitable market share (and Sony's isn't much better).
Don't buy either...unless you want to enjoy it now. I have a big investment in M43, but as for investment lenses, I would stick with Canikon. I have made quite a little circular economy by buying gear, using it for a year or two and then selling it on ebay or Fred Miranda forums. With Canon gear I generally get 80% of my investment back. On the Olympus gear it has been more like 65% of my investment back. It just isn't in as great a demand.
The reason to get these systems is not because they will last for 5 or 15 years. It is because you like it this year.
-
Reasonable.
I already own both systems, but I have no NEX lenses and only one M4/3rds lens.
All my lens investment is tied up in Leica M.
The M lenses don't look so great on the M4/3rds BMD video camera I have.
I can't see me starting a Nikon or Cannon lens collection from scratch (I'm over 50).
I guess I could buy Nikon format lenses for the BMD video camera and use adapters. Sigma for Nikon for example.
-
Is there anything in the M4/3rds product line that matches NEX7 for image quality and ergonomics/size?
you saw how Sony camera/Sony sensor fares vs non Sony Camera/smaller Sony sensor... that is about raw files
size = http://camerasize.com
ergonomics - it is way too personal thing, imho
-
I don't think the m43 is a bad investment, but maybe because I've spent 10 grand on it, which seems like a lot until I look at a digital back or a Canon 1d anything, then it seems minor.
(It's funny how perspective changes).
M43 has a great lens system, the original olympus 43 mount was even better, though only semi works on the omd em1 and doesn't autofocus well at all on my gh3's which is drag because there are a lot of f2 lenses in four thirds that would be great for motion imagery.
The only drawback of both the nex and m43 is the lenses don't really work on anything else. They obviously won't cover full frame and m43 not even super 35mm for video, but I guess that's not the end of the world considering you really can't move any autofocus lens from one maker to another maker's camera and get 100% full functionality without some glitch.
But even if m43 goes away, which I don't see happening given the amount of smaller cameras that have been sold, the cost is still very small considering what a lot of legacy cameras dropped to. I mean what is a Canon 1ds worth today, $500? That's $6,000 less than it was new, $3,000 less than 5 years ago. I still have a d2x and I wonder what that would bring today, or how useful it really is? Probably not much on both accounts.
When it comes to holding value digital sucks and the business model is buy new, buy new and by the way, by new.
Funny thing is I can pull files from my 1ds, 1ds2, 1ds3, 1dx and with modern processors don't see that much of a difference, so I think we've all been a little hoodwinked in thinking a new camera is going to make our images oh so much better.
I bought into the 43 system (never giving it a thought before) only for the video function of the gh3, which I think is beyond good for the price, then bought an em-5 olympus for some stills and because I liked the camera. The gh3 was for biz, the em-5 for me.
Given all of that, I think it's a great system and if you can forget about the sensor size and only look at the final imagery, it's worth it. I'll admit everytime I change a lens and look at that little sensor I suffer some cold water shrinkage, but the results are good.
The few things 43 needs to be truly professional is robust tethering, a very fast 10mm lens (with autofocus) and some samples that aren't cat photos and scenics of barns, showing detail of tree limbs.
I know they want to market these cameras as walk arounds, due to the size and weight, but they have a lot of professional possiblities and honestly how difficult is to make it tether through a usb cord?
IMO
BC
-
Hi,
4/3 is multivendor and quite stable. I guess it stays for long.
There is a recent video with Michael Richmann and CTein discussing things, among other things 4/3. What they say is that 4/3 good enough.
I would suggest that the good enough thing is important. For the technically best image you go for the best, but very few will see the advantage in real world images in print and screen.
Best regards
Erik
I don't think the m43 is a bad investment, but maybe because I've spent 10 grand on it, which seems like a lot until I look at a digital back or a Canon 1d anything, then it seems minor.
(It's funny how perspective changes).
M43 has a great lens system, the original olympus 43 mount was even better, though only semi works on the omd em1 and doesn't autofocus well at all on my gh3's which is drag because there are a lot of f2 lenses in four thirds that would be great for motion imagery.
The only drawback of both the nex and m43 is the lenses don't really work on anything else. They obviously won't cover full frame and m43 not even super 35mm for video, but I guess that's not the end of the world considering you really can't move any autofocus lens from one maker to another maker's camera and get 100% full functionality without some glitch.
But even if m43 goes away, which I don't see happening given the amount of smaller cameras that have been sold, the cost is still very small considering what a lot of legacy cameras dropped to. I mean what is a Canon 1ds worth today, $500? That's $6,000 less than it was new, $3,000 less than 5 years ago. I still have a d2x and I wonder what that would bring today, or how useful it really is? Probably not much on both accounts.
When it comes to holding value digital sucks and the business model is buy new, buy new and by the way, by new.
Funny thing is I can pull files from my 1ds, 1ds2, 1ds3, 1dx and with modern processors don't see that much of a difference, so I think we've all been a little hoodwinked in thinking a new camera is going to make our images oh so much better.
I bought into the 43 system (never giving it a thought before) only for the video function of the gh3, which I think is beyond good for the price, then bought an em-5 olympus for some stills and because I liked the camera. The gh3 was for biz, the em-5 for me.
Given all of that, I think it's a great system and if you can forget about the sensor size and only look at the final imagery, it's worth it. I'll admit everytime I change a lens and look at that little sensor I suffer some cold water shrinkage, but the results are good.
The few things 43 needs to be truly professional is robust tethering, a very fast 10mm lens (with autofocus) and some samples that aren't cat photos and scenics of barns, showing detail of tree limbs.
I know they want to market these cameras as walk arounds, due to the size and weight, but they have a lot of professional possiblities and honestly how difficult is to make it tether through a usb cord?
IMO
BC
-
4/3 is multivendor and quite stable. I guess it stays for long.
There is a recent video with Michael Richmann and CTein discussing things, among other things 4/3. What they say is that 4/3 good enough.
I would suggest that the good enough thing is important. For the technically best image you go for the best, but very few will see the advantage in real world images in print and screen.
That hits the nail on the head for me. I enjoy using lots of different cameras...for me the process of photographing has always been a huge part of my enjoyment of photography overall. What you've got in your hands or on your tripod and how you operate it...all this contributes to that process. But the results, on-screen or in a print propped up on my piano or stuck to the wall, are fine & dandy these days across the board. Which gives those of us in the non-pro world the freedom to use, within monetary constraints, whichever tools we most enjoy using. And it gives pros like BC more latitude too...surely a good thing given current commercial turbulence.
-Dave-
-
That hits the nail on the head for me. I enjoy using lots of different cameras...for me the process of photographing has always been a huge part of my enjoyment of photography overall. What you've got in your hands or on your tripod and how you operate it...all this contributes to that process.
-Dave-
Dave,
There you go you nailed it.
Pro or amateur, if you enjoy what and how you do something the results are always better.
I personally love the m43 format and for stills the em5.
Leica, Voights, super 16 cmounts, along with a good basic lens line up.
Changing the crop in camera from 16x9 for cut frame still video to square is more of an advantage than most would think.
Want to go old school. Put a manual focus lens. with f stops on the lens, on a em-5 pull out the screen and shoot it like a waist level camera and you have the results of a tesla and a 67 corvette that had a baby.
I've been testing my Voigt Nokton 50mm 1.2 and 35mm 1.5 on the em-5 and they are not near as sharp as the OLY and pana autofocus lenses, but they have a soft glowing film like look.
I wanted to see the look before dropping 3k on the .95 lenses.
Also they are the only way I know that you can use a Leica 90mm and actually see the frame and focus quickly.
The cool thing is if you want to double your resolution, just switch from leica or Voigtlander to an oly and pana fast prime and your there, though to me the ultra sharp 43 lenses are a little too digital.
For T-mark.
If your still following this forum, do yourself a favor. Let your fingers run, don't walk, and try a em-5 for two weeks. Yes it takes two weeks. First week to figure out the menu (then you set and you don't have to go back) another week to let the camera controls and the evf become normal. I promise you, after you get used to the evf, you'll find an optical finder strange.
If you were interested in a manual focus Nikon FM in digital form, the em-5 or em-1 is it. I know that sounds crazy considering it is so electronic, but the viewfinder is huge compared to most ovf and you can actually manual focus almost any lens and hit it, even wide open at 1.2 and without the zoom assist.
I'd say go with an om1 but I think it's too expensive right now and you can buy three em-5's for the price of one df and even shoot some decent video.
For Olympus
What were you guys thinking changing the look of the em-5 when you made the em-1. The em-5 is the only camera I've used that out leicas leica.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/leica_oly_pana.jpg)
For all 4/3 makers.
If your gonna go pro, go fast. Please don't make any lens that is shorter than 75mm slower than 1.5, I'd even say 1.2. Also make a hard line tether. No matter the size of camera, everybody that shoots for commerce has to tether from time to time.
I've shot a lot with these 43 cameras and they aren't just good enough, they're good. I know the pixel peepers are going to scream at that thought ,but digital has changed the landscape.
What use to be large format is now 645, what use to be medium format is full frame 35mm, m43 is now 35mm and point and shoots, that's a smartphone.
Also these pana and olympus cameras autofocus fast and accurate, but the real key is you can manually focus. Few modern cameras today manually focus as well as m43.
IMO
BC
-
I use an Olympus EPL5, mostly with the kit lens. I wanted something that was a step up from a point and shoot and I got that and more. Still I haven't used it with a fast prime. What do people think about the bokah (spelling?) of primes on m4/3? Also what is the highest iso people are using and still happy with the results? It is only a matter of time before I'll have to try 17mm 1.8 lens. Ctein (again spelling?) seemed quite happy with the Olympus 45mm.
-
BC said:
"What used to be large format is now 645, what used to be medium format is full frame 35 mm, m43 is now 35 mm and point and shoots, that's a smart phone."
Very interesting point, and I think quite accurate.
I enjoyed reading your posts on this thread - well thought out. I've been thinking about M43 for quite a while; your comments have pushed me closer - it's just a matter of funding right now.
Glenn
-
I'm no micro 4/3 fan (far from it) but I have to say they have built up a very decent lens system no question about it.
Sony on the other hand have never really impressed with NEX, they have a few decent lenses..a few too many mediocre ones and it's far from complete either.
On the other hand if you're big into legacy glass it might not be a huge issue.
-
I think the Sony Nex lens issue is a non argument.
Zeiss Touit are excellent and available in several different and useful versions. The two main Sigma lenses (19mm and 30mm) are extremely cheap and are producing sensational quality images.
-
If you want to shoot AF, just because NEX doesn't have this (and Sony doesn't seem to be able to design such quality/size lenses):
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/pen1.jpg)
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/pen2.jpg)
I would choose M4/3 without any doubt.
If you are interested in MF, I'd choose Sony, but the A7.
Regards
-
I think there is something lacking in the translation. My Nex 7 will AF with all my AF designed lenses. And MF with all my old Mf designed lenses.
-
I'm just not sure that any of these marginalized players have the financial fortitude to stay in this business indefinitely. Among the marginal players, M43 companies, and Fuji don't have the reach that Sony has as far as retail distribution is concerned. Sony has the best chance, but their lens-collection is one of the weaker of the compact systems. New entries by Zeiss may eventually change that.
Another possible change that could make a big difference is if another manufacturer got more heavily involved in M43. Variously there have been rumors of a Sony M43 (seems doubtful) and now of a Sigma M43. http://www.43rumors.com/sigma-is-considering-to-launch-a-mft-system-camera/
The Sigma entry would be a big deal because it would bring a bit more critical mass to lenses, accessories and body availability. Sigma could drive prices down and quality up. I am not holding my breath though it would be wonderful.
Don't get me wrong. I love M43. I think it is a great compromise. I have a large investment myself, and honestly I am a bit of a booster of the format (though I try not to range into fanboy talk), but the financial considerations are running against M43. The best technology doesn't always win (see betamax, HDDVD, Plasma TV, DC power, etc...).
-
Panasonic are fully signed up to M4/3rds. Panasonic are a large global electronics company.
You can look at it many ways. One company makes cameras in the E mount format. Several companies make cameras in the M4/3rds format. I actually think E mount is more dodgy going forward, especially as Sony are split between E mount and A mount. At least Panasonic and Olympus are 100% M4/3rds.
-
Sigma could drive prices down and quality up.
are you talking about cameras ? somehow SD* and DP* do not speak about quality... plus we have enough m43 bodies w/ more styles than competition and w/ various prices.... lenses another story, but Sigma already makes m43 lenses and Sigma is a part of m43 for quite some time.
-
I'm just not sure that any of these marginalized players have the financial fortitude to stay in this business indefinitely. Among the marginal players, M43 companies, and Fuji don't have the reach that Sony has as far as retail distribution is concerned. Sony has the best chance, but their lens-collection is one of the weaker of the compact systems. New entries by Zeiss may eventually change that.
Olympus sold 1.15 billion dollars in cameras in 2012, though obviously they had some severe management problems.
M43 when you combine Panasonic and Olympus sales are #3 behind Canon and Nikon and have twice the sales numbers of sony still cameras.
Sony has a retail reach, but Sony is all over the place in what they sell and what direction they go.
Sony is also the king of holding back features to move you up to the next highest model. Given they are smart and innovative, but every motion camera they sell is held back with features until you get into the very high range.
Where Sony goes with still photography is still a less than transparent business model. A series, E series, both? Who knows, but they obviously didn't make the breakthrough like they planned so to the the A7 is interesting, but doesn't have the complete usability of a lot of the competition.
At least with Paansonic for the money they didn't hobble their gh3, just the opposite and probably will turn the world around with the gh4 (at least for video) and Olympus makes no bones about making the best still camera they can for the money.
Honestly I'd love a larger sensor in the Olympus, but given my choice today over a A series sony or the OMD em-1, I'd take the olympus first because I know where they are going and m43 seems to have new lens offerings daily.
IMO
BC
-
"and honestly how difficult is to make it tether through a usb cord?"
ask phase-1.
::)
-
Olympus sold 1.15 billion dollars in cameras in 2012, though obviously they had some severe management problems.
M43 when you combine Panasonic and Olympus sales are #3 behind Canon and Nikon and have twice the sales numbers of sony still cameras.
Sony has a retail reach, but Sony is all over the place in what they sell and what direction they go.
Sony is also the king of holding back features to move you up to the next highest model. Given they are smart and innovative, but every motion camera they sell is held back with features until you get into the very high range.
Where Sony goes with still photography is still a less than transparent business model. A series, E series, both? Who knows, but they obviously didn't make the breakthrough like they planned so to the the A7 is interesting, but doesn't have the complete usability of a lot of the competition.
At least with Paansonic for the money they didn't hobble their gh3, just the opposite and probably will turn the world around with the gh4 (at least for video) and Olympus makes no bones about making the best still camera they can for the money.
Honestly I'd love a larger sensor in the Olympus, but given my choice today over a A series sony or the OMD em-1, I'd take the olympus first because I know where they are going and m43 seems to have new lens offerings daily.
IMO
BC
On target mostly.
I agree Sony has recently been doing this "cutting back" on entry models esp the A series ones (unimpressed with their cost cutting plastic mounts etc)
They do seem unfortunately to be trying to cobble lower end models more and more.
However I would have to give the king of crippling to Nikon. They are now the only maker to not offer wireless flash on the D3200/5300 models everyone else does (bar the EOS 100d), they also don't allow HSS on those models, again everyone else has had this for ages and ages. Nikon also cobble backwards compatibility on these models with no in body AF motor, and no metering for older lenses I've Minolta film bodies that can do that over a decade old ::) So let's put the real king of cut down crown where it really belongs!
The A mount from Sony is only interesting "if"
You acquire a bunch of good but very reasonably priced Minolta lenses (there are some very good ones at very silly cheap prices) and they will AF on all A Mount bodies (bar the SSM on older film models), a few ho hum ones out there, but most of them are actually very strong optically
Or you pick up a bunch of Tamron non stabilised glass again at good prices (think 90mm f2.8, 17-50mm, maybe the older 70-200mm f2.8) and enjoy the IBIS for free without having to pay extra for in lens IS.
For bargain hunters A mount "can" be a compelling options, but unless you go down that road above I personally don't recommend A mount.
Sony do some good A mount lenses, they can make good optics. Problem is they are not cheaper than Canikon in some cases a bit more. Thus wasting the incentive of IBIS.
I believe this is one reason why Sony have not done as well as they expected, little reason for most to pick them over Canikon. But if you like Tamron glass and are ok with s/h purchases, you can build up quite a good system for a very modest outlay.
Micro 4/3 has it's point small being one, the lenses seem good and reasonably priced. I have to say I do like the Fuji X concept, though they have to iron out the issues and quirks still. Fuji's lack of proper flash is a real turn off though, no HSS, no wireless they need to address that big time. Hard choice for anyone starting from scratch. I personally don't care that much for NEX or E mount, I think you'd be better served lenses wise shoving A mount glass on there with an adaptor.
Problem for A Mount users is you have to buy that adaptor and it won't AF with screw drive lenses, the other one has the SLT mirror so you add the cost up and it's going to cost you more to buy a NEX with an adaptor you'd be better off with an A Mount body. You lose IBIS as well.
-
Olympus sold 1.15 billion dollars in cameras in 2012, though obviously they had some severe management problems.
M43 when you combine Panasonic and Olympus sales are #3 behind Canon and Nikon and have twice the sales numbers of sony still cameras.
Sony has a retail reach, but Sony is all over the place in what they sell and what direction they go.
Sony is also the king of holding back features to move you up to the next highest model. Given they are smart and innovative, but every motion camera they sell is held back with features until you get into the very high range.
Where Sony goes with still photography is still a less than transparent business model. A series, E series, both? Who knows, but they obviously didn't make the breakthrough like they planned so to the the A7 is interesting, but doesn't have the complete usability of a lot of the competition.
At least with Paansonic for the money they didn't hobble their gh3, just the opposite and probably will turn the world around with the gh4 (at least for video) and Olympus makes no bones about making the best still camera they can for the money.
Honestly I'd love a larger sensor in the Olympus, but given my choice today over a A series sony or the OMD em-1, I'd take the olympus first because I know where they are going and m43 seems to have new lens offerings daily.
IMO
BC
Revenue isn't the most important thing. Profit is.
It is irrelevant to add Olympus and Panasonic together and then compare them. They operate independently and neither is burning down the house with sales and profits from M43 cameras.
I agree that Sony is all over the map with their offering. They don't seem to stick with any one thing long enough for it to take hold. M43 has done better in that regard. Sony probably has the deepest pockets of the bunch--though Panasonic is pretty huge too. The difference is that sony is a consumer products company and Panasonic is much more diversivied and has a weaker retail channel than Sony. I still contend that Panasonic and Sony stay in the market to hedge their bets regarding video and still convergence. They really don't care as much about the still camera market like Olympus does. Despite my preference for still cameras, that might be a mistake for Olympus (and Nikon who also hasn't emphasized video as much).
...and finally, a larger sensor in M43 will undermine its one unique attribute--smaller lenses with excellent quality.
Larger sensor = larger lenses. I believe this to remain true today. Aside from some normal-range fixed-focal-length lenses, none of the manufacturers have mass-produced a high-quality, truly-compact, full-frame lens. There have been some cameras with ~35mm lenses that have been good. I haven't seen a good and compact wide angle lens or telephoto lens.
Remember I am saying this all as a M43 booster. I really want them to be successful with this format. Right now it isn't about having a great product. Their success is about marketing--convincing the markets that M43 is as good as larger format sensors. They aren't winning that air-war yet. I hope they do, because I believe in the trade-offs they are making.
-
Fike,
Lumping Olympus and Panasonic together is relevant for some things.
Firstly, for the ability to share some technologies, like sensors.
Secondly for the "network effects" of the system, like the wide array of lenses that the two makers together provide, and the fact that their combined sales volume can influence decisions by other companies about designing and offering sensors, lenses and such for the system.
Thirdly, the related "herd effect": many potential customers make choices partly on perceived "success" as measured by the number of people they see or hear of using the product or saying nice things about it, and this perception seems often based on "Micro Four Thirds" as a whole rather than the individual brands.
-
Fike,
Lumping Olympus and Panasonic together is relevant for some things.
Firstly, for the ability to share some technologies, like sensors.
Secondly for the "network effects" of the system, like the wide array of lenses that the two makers together provide, and the fact that their combined sales volume can influence decisions by other companies about designing and offering sensors, lenses and such for the system.
Thirdly, the related "herd effect": many potential customers make choices partly on perceived "success" as measured by the number of people they see or hear of using the product or saying nice things about it, and this perception seems often based on "Micro Four Thirds" as a whole rather than the individual brands.
All you say is true. I should have been more explicitl. I meant that in the context of revenue and profit.
-
As an ex (but still occassional) pixel peeper I have a few observations. I have enthusiastically used Canon C cropped and FF cameras, with a variety of quality lenes, including L glass. I have also used Sony, Fujifilm, Olympus 4/3rds and Sigma cameras. Honestly, I like them all and enjoy using all of them. They are all capable of producing excellent print quality. At the pixel level I've had the best results with Canon FF and L glass. No surprise there.
Over the past year I have undergone a paradigm shift in my thinking. I rediscovered some of the fundamental truths about why I enjoy photography. First, it's all about image quality. Second, it's all about image quality. I purchased the Sigma DP2M because of its reported image quality. There were a lot of negative aspects: battery life and low light performance being the major complaints. I can confirm that these are valid. This is a camera that forces you to think in order to get the most out of it - just like in the film days. However, the resulting image quality is absolutely stunning. It equals, any in many cases exceeds FF performance and rivals that of medium format. Best of all, it can be carried in a large pocket.
I also discovered M4/3rds. I purchased an EM5 along with several quality primes and Panasonic zooms (12-35, 35-100, 7-14). I was amazed at the image quality that can be produced with this camera and good glass. It easily matches that of the 5D2 with equivalent L lenses at a fraction of the size.
Both the Sigma DP2M and Olympus E5M produce a film like quality in very compact packages. However, there are a lot of cameras now available that are capable of producing similar performance. Is the NEX 7 the best camera? Maybe. That's up to you if it best fits your needs.. The best answer that I've heard to the question "what is the best camera" is "the one that you have with you." When you have a camera/lens combination that you like, you tend to use it. Miniscule differences in techical measurements won't matter. You will never see them in real image quality if you understand and know how to use your equipment. Color depth, dynamic range, noise and pixel count are great sophistic topics but are largely irrelevant when compared with the importance of good basic techniques. Just about all of the current crop of digital cameras are capable of producing excellent quality images in capable hands.