Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: Dan Wells on December 01, 2013, 01:47:44 am
-
The A7 and A7r will almost certainly be VERY difficult to get the most out of from a lens perspective - the D3x and especially the D800(e) are notorious for being extremely picky about lenses. I have used both extensively, and I never found a zoom I really liked on the 800e (even the 24-70 f2.8 Nikkor wasn't quite up to the sensor). There are some primes that are good enough to show off those sensors - the only one I ever shot much with was the 105 Micro VR - but I have always used zooms (apart from macro lenses), simply due to the nature of my photography - I don't doubt that there are a decent range of superb primes that take full advantage of the sensor.
Assuming that the A7r is about as picky as the D800e, and the A7 is about as picky as a D3x, which doesn't seem a bad assumption, given the sensor similarities, how badly constrained will they be by available lenses? There seems to be little question that the 35mm Zeiss is a superb lens, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the 55mm was equally good. I'm not sure about the Zeiss 24-70 zoom - some Sony Zeiss zooms are superb, but others, including the new 16-70 for NEX, aren't great. The Sony 28-70 kit lens will probably be cut to ribbons by those ultra-high resolution sensors, and that seems apparent in early reviews - I have seen few good words about that lens.
Adapters are another question entirely - in addition to losing AF and image stabilization, they are hard to get completely straight - one more joint between body and lens that can be off by some fraction of a mm... Adapters are also notorious for not working terribly well on ultra wide lenses. At least right now, I see the line up of truly good lenses for the A7 (r) as stretching from about a 24 (Leica, among others, on a top-quality adapter) through 35 and 55mm Sony Zeiss lenses to 75 and 90mm rangefinder lenses, again on a top quality adapter. There is no really good option for a macro lens, either - the only possibilities will be FF DSLR lenses on adapters, making them even bigger than they already are, and no AF or IS. Above 90, the fact that adapted lenses will generally have no AF (or extremely slow AF at best) or IS seems a huge drawback. If it is a superb lens, the 24-70 Zeiss will cover most of that range with AF and IS intact (although with no close focusing). There is also the option of really high end DSLR primes (Otus, etc.) on adapters, which will offer truly exceptional performance, at a huge cost in practicality.
Outside that limited range, or with less expensive or more versatile lenses within the limited range, will the A7 (r) offer better image quality than other mirrorless options, once body and lens are considered together? I would not be AT ALL surprised if an E-M1 with the 12-40 f2.8 Olympus or an X-E2 with the beautiful 18-55 Fuji can actually outresolve the Sony with the kit lens (I have NO question that the Sony sensor is better, but will the lens give back the sensor's gains)? I am sure that the A7r with the Zeiss zoom will outresolve the competition, but at twice the price, and by how much? Will the A7 with the Zeiss zoom actually outresolve the Olympus and the Fuji by enough to matter most of the time - or are the Sonys specialized cameras which only show their superiority with a limited number of primes, losing stabilization and even AF.
If the A7 and A7r do turn out to be severely lens-constrained, photographers will have to consider them VERY carefully, based upon their type of shooting. If you're a classic Leica rangefinder shooter, great - I'm 100% sure they'll turn in a better performance than anything except (possibly) an M240, at a much lower price (with the option of a couple of AF lenses). If I preferred primes at a range of moderate focal lengths, I'd have a Sony for sure. You also have the Otus and a couple of other options that offer medium-format image quality, at the cost of a ton of weight and bulk.
If you prefer zooms, you have ONE lens choice (the Zeiss), if it turns out to be good enough - there is a good possibility that it won't really outresolve a lesser camera with a better lens. With no real reviews of the Zeiss yet, I'd speculate based on the history of Sony Zeiss zooms and the few preliminary shooter's reports that it has (very roughly) a 33% chance of being no better than an E-M1 with the 12-40 or an X-E2 with the 18-55, a 33% chance of being only a little better (lens is letting the sensor down, but it is noticeably slightly better than the next-best mirrorless option), and a 33% chance of living up to at least the 24 mp sensor and possibly the 36, and being the best highly portable body/zoom combo by a wide margin. At first, there is no ultra wide zoom, and one telephoto zoom that may not live up to the sensor, only goes to 200mm, and is going to be big and heavy when it finally appears. If you want a macro lens, you're entirely out of luck so far... Sony's record on high-quality lenses for the NEX system isn't exactly stellar, either - more are starting to appear (and some, like the 10-18, seem very good), but the history has been a frustrating mishmash of multiple versions of the same consumer-grade zooms, with an occasional very nice prime thrown in.
I ended up expanding my m4/3 system after very careful consideration of adding a Sony instead (I'm a zoom and macro shooter, because I do nature, but on long hikes, so I want neither the weight nor the bother of a bagful of primes), primarily because I thought I could equal the performance of anything except unstabilized primes and the very expensive A7r/Zeiss combo in a system with a lot more versatility. I am NOT claiming that my choice will be right for everyone, simply raising the question of how hard the new Sonys will be to pair with lenses, and how this affects their final IQ in the print compared to other mirrorless options.
Dan
-
Hi,
I would suggest that many of the problems are overstated. Sony and Zeiss are capable of making fine lenses and we are going to see third party lenses like Sigma Art series.
There is a big but, high quality telephoto lenses for full frame 135 will never going to be small.
Best regards
Erik
The A7 and A7r will almost certainly be VERY difficult to get the most out of from a lens perspective - the D3x and especially the D800(e) are notorious for being extremely picky about lenses. I have used both extensively, and I never found a zoom I really liked on the 800e (even the 24-70 f2.8 Nikkor wasn't quite up to the sensor). There are some primes that are good enough to show off those sensors - the only one I ever shot much with was the 105 Micro VR - but I have always used zooms (apart from macro lenses), simply due to the nature of my photography - I don't doubt that there are a decent range of superb primes that take full advantage of the sensor.
Assuming that the A7r is about as picky as the D800e, and the A7 is about as picky as a D3x, which doesn't seem a bad assumption, given the sensor similarities, how badly constrained will they be by available lenses? There seems to be little question that the 35mm Zeiss is a superb lens, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the 55mm was equally good. I'm not sure about the Zeiss 24-70 zoom - some Sony Zeiss zooms are superb, but others, including the new 16-70 for NEX, aren't great. The Sony 28-70 kit lens will probably be cut to ribbons by those ultra-high resolution sensors, and that seems apparent in early reviews - I have seen few good words about that lens.
Adapters are another question entirely - in addition to losing AF and image stabilization, they are hard to get completely straight - one more joint between body and lens that can be off by some fraction of a mm... Adapters are also notorious for not working terribly well on ultra wide lenses. At least right now, I see the line up of truly good lenses for the A7 (r) as stretching from about a 24 (Leica, among others, on a top-quality adapter) through 35 and 55mm Sony Zeiss lenses to 75 and 90mm rangefinder lenses, again on a top quality adapter. There is no really good option for a macro lens, either - the only possibilities will be FF DSLR lenses on adapters, making them even bigger than they already are, and no AF or IS. Above 90, the fact that adapted lenses will generally have no AF (or extremely slow AF at best) or IS seems a huge drawback. If it is a superb lens, the 24-70 Zeiss will cover most of that range with AF and IS intact (although with no close focusing). There is also the option of really high end DSLR primes (Otus, etc.) on adapters, which will offer truly exceptional performance, at a huge cost in practicality.
Outside that limited range, or with less expensive or more versatile lenses within the limited range, will the A7 (r) offer better image quality than other mirrorless options, once body and lens are considered together? I would not be AT ALL surprised if an E-M1 with the 12-40 f2.8 Olympus or an X-E2 with the beautiful 18-55 Fuji can actually outresolve the Sony with the kit lens (I have NO question that the Sony sensor is better, but will the lens give back the sensor's gains)? I am sure that the A7r with the Zeiss zoom will outresolve the competition, but at twice the price, and by how much? Will the A7 with the Zeiss zoom actually outresolve the Olympus and the Fuji by enough to matter most of the time - or are the Sonys specialized cameras which only show their superiority with a limited number of primes, losing stabilization and even AF.
If the A7 and A7r do turn out to be severely lens-constrained, photographers will have to consider them VERY carefully, based upon their type of shooting. If you're a classic Leica rangefinder shooter, great - I'm 100% sure they'll turn in a better performance than anything except (possibly) an M240, at a much lower price (with the option of a couple of AF lenses). If I preferred primes at a range of moderate focal lengths, I'd have a Sony for sure. You also have the Otus and a couple of other options that offer medium-format image quality, at the cost of a ton of weight and bulk.
If you prefer zooms, you have ONE lens choice (the Zeiss), if it turns out to be good enough - there is a good possibility that it won't really outresolve a lesser camera with a better lens. With no real reviews of the Zeiss yet, I'd speculate based on the history of Sony Zeiss zooms and the few preliminary shooter's reports that it has (very roughly) a 33% chance of being no better than an E-M1 with the 12-40 or an X-E2 with the 18-55, a 33% chance of being only a little better (lens is letting the sensor down, but it is noticeably slightly better than the next-best mirrorless option), and a 33% chance of living up to at least the 24 mp sensor and possibly the 36, and being the best highly portable body/zoom combo by a wide margin. At first, there is no ultra wide zoom, and one telephoto zoom that may not live up to the sensor, only goes to 200mm, and is going to be big and heavy when it finally appears. If you want a macro lens, you're entirely out of luck so far... Sony's record on high-quality lenses for the NEX system isn't exactly stellar, either - more are starting to appear (and some, like the 10-18, seem very good), but the history has been a frustrating mishmash of multiple versions of the same consumer-grade zooms, with an occasional very nice prime thrown in.
I ended up expanding my m4/3 system after very careful consideration of adding a Sony instead (I'm a zoom and macro shooter, because I do nature, but on long hikes, so I want neither the weight nor the bother of a bagful of primes), primarily because I thought I could equal the performance of anything except unstabilized primes and the very expensive A7r/Zeiss combo in a system with a lot more versatility. I am NOT claiming that my choice will be right for everyone, simply raising the question of how hard the new Sonys will be to pair with lenses, and how this affects their final IQ in the print compared to other mirrorless options.
Dan
-
I haven't received my A7r which will be used for the immediate future with adapters. So I can't say how my A mount Minolta and Sony lenses will perform, let alone my old Contax, Olympus and Voigtlander gear. But what I have with my A850 ( 24 MP ) full frame and Nex 7 ( 24 MP ) APS cameras, is yes like everything some lenses perform better than others - however real life results in print do not follow line pairs per mm or DXO tests.
Just because many wides and zooms don't make it past say 16 MP in theory it doesn't mean that with a " better " sensor something more can't be got out of them. Or that sometimes the high end performance is spread over a wider gamut of real life circumstances. All very circumstantial I know. I don't expect my Contax 18/4 or 35 - 135 zoom will perform the same as new FE lenses designed with the new sensors in mind.
Comparing the FF Sony with the Olympus - it is going to take Sony and Zeiss at least a couple of years to provide what Olympus and Panasonic have all ready provided. I will note that many of the current m43 lenses are more " kit " lenses than high end.
However if you are seriously into backpacking in tough terrain then the Olympus camera and sensor is most certainly good enough. After the old maxim about f 8 and being there still applies, even though I would suggest f 4 as being better with the m43. ;D
-
I like it - f4 and be there... Fuji has a huge advantage over everyone (including the DSLR makers - there are plenty of junk Nikkors and EF lenses mixed in with the real gems) except Leica in the uniform quality of their lens line (possible exception of the two XC lenses - Fuji realized they needed cheap kit lenses 2+ years into their system). m43 certainly has a ton of kit lenses, but there are quite a few beauties (including zooms) mixed in. There are two very nice normal zooms, both f2.8, and both as good as any DSLR f2.8 normal zoom, if not better - several reviews prefer the Olympus 12-40 optically over the 2 lb Nikkor 24-70, which inexcusably omits any form of stabilization. There is a world-class macro lens that weighs 6 ozs (usefully stabilized on the right body). There are a couple of short tele zooms, although telephoto is the biggest weakness of the system. There is a pro-grade ultrawide zoom (much smaller than any equivalent in another system), which unfortunately has a compatibility problem with the bodies it might go best with. I don't know much about the nice collection of fast primes (other than that it's there), because I don't tend to shoot those lenses. I'd say that, of the 40+ m43 lenses, there might be 10-15 exceptional optics, covering about the same range as the Fuji system, and including everything you'd find in a good DSLR system except the $3000+ long and fast lenses. Fuji covers about the same needs with fewer redundant choices, because they don't have Olympus and Panasonic versions of similar lenses, but doesn't have the lower-quality lenses that are cheaper for occasional use (or serve some odd need, where the other option is no lens at all). The best example of this is the mid-grade Panasonic 100-300 zoom - it's no pro lens (about equivalent to a Nikon VR ED or Canon IS USM 70-300 in the same price range), but what else has 600mm reach in a 1 lb package? I'd love to see a high-quality version of THAT lens (Canon has a variable-aperture 70-300 L that is roughly the same size as other 70-300s, but higher quality, so a pro-grade variable aperture telezoom is a possibility).
-
I would suggest that many of the problems are overstated.
+1
and for the OP's nature and macro use, the loss of AF and the hazards of not having PerfectlyParallelPlanes in the adapters are grossly overstated. There are many stellar lenses one can use on the a7 and a7r with adapters. Wean yourself off the AF addiction and have some fun.
-
I think sony rushed the A7(r).
I guess if you want a bargain 30 something megapixels and shoot everything pretty much stationary it's fine, probably good . . . but I think this is being sold more as a bargain leica than a replacement for a D800.
When It was announced I was excited. An omd size camera that was full frame, had video capabilities but then I thought, oh, yea it's Sony so there has to be a blank space in their somewhere.
So the reviews on all lenses, sony and adapted lenses is slow to creeping slow with autofocus.
35 mpx doesn't mean much if focus is missed.
Then there is the fact that the focus points don't cover the frame anymore than a standard dslr and low light focusing is out.
I kind of don't get that because the Olympus and the Panasonic will work in virtual darkness and the Olympus focus points cover about 80% of the frame the panasonic about 90%.
Also you don't have touch screen to adjust or pull focus on the Sony like you to the olympus and the Panasonic.
So I guess I kind of miss the point of this camera. For the money if you need high megapixels it's not that much more to go with the Nikon d800 and have reliable focusing and a much more useable camera.
The weight won't matter much if you carry some lenses, because fast full frame 35mm lenses are big, no matter who makes them, so the body becomes secondary in weight.
It's not just autofocus, I manually focus a lot of cameras, the Olympus being the easiest, modern dslrs from Nikon and Canon the most difficult, but Sony seems to have negated the value of a evf if it doesn't cover more focus points, the lenses aren't lighter and manual to autofocus is hobbled, especially in low light.
I know most people won't compare a 4/3 camera to full frame, but working the Olympus and panasonic the only issues I have with them is after around 1,600 iso they get kind of painterly looking, if you kill track noise.
Though most cameras, even the 5d3 and 1dx gets a lot of softening applied over 1,000 iso, so no camera I've worked doesn't loose detail at higher isos.
For video the A7)r) is under the gh3 in specs and I'd be really surprised if it's more usable in video. Today I'm editing a sequence from Paris where the subjects walk parallel from behind a building, cross the street, make a 90 degree turn, walk at a different pace, then cross the street towards the camera.
I use a 100 to 300mm F4 to 5.6 pana lens on the gh3, not the fastest lens in the world and it held focus regardless of people crossing in front of the lens, cars passing, street signs in the way and it held on the faces.
If I had shot that manual focus I'm almost positive I would have had to cut it to a two or three shot.
I think we all know sony can make just about anything, but for some reason this camera seemed to come out rushed or held back.
For some this camera probably will be great and I hope I'm wrong and firmware fixes some of the issues, but until then I'll wait for version 2 or 3.
IMO
BC
-
I have no personal stake in whether or not the A7 & A7r succeed in the marketplace and/or as creative tools. I'm curious about the cameras but not really interested, if you get my drift. But I will say this: I use my cameras to take advantage of the qualities of my lenses, not the other way around. There's just no way I'd give up using, for example, my '60s Leitz 50mm Summicron just because a particular camera's sensor is capable of outresolving it. So what?! I love the way that lens makes things look...end of story.
Now I might check out the latest 50mm Summicron ASPH, or maybe the Zeiss 55mm Otus, as an additional tool to give me a different look. But not as a replacement.
Photographs are holistic objects, more than just collections of pixels on a screen or ink dots on a print.
-Dave-
-
I received my A7 this week and it's a joy to use. I bought the kit lens for occasional use (might as well have it at the price) but I'll mostly use my Zuiko and Rokkor manual lenses.
I've managed to try all of my lenses via adapters apart from my 24mm and so far I've been unable to detect any issues at all. Manual focus is a joy either with the magnified view or peaking and I personally have found peaking to be very accurate, I have mine set to high and white.
I have a Panasonic G1 and a 5D and since getting the G1 I've hardly used the Canon and so recently sold off most of my lenses just keeping three. I can see myself using the Sony from now on and so may very well sell of the rest of my Canon gear although I may keep the G1 as it'll use the same lenses as the Sony via adapters.
The Sony is a joy to use and I can only nit pick a few things to change...
1. Fully articulated screen.
2. A button for switching between EVF and screen or the ability to assign that function to a c button.
3. A "My Menu" you could load with option you want.
4. Move c2 as I struggle to find and press it.
5. In Body IS.
One thing that did strike me, the high ISO ability of this camera is simply amazing.
-
I find any lens over 50mm equivalent pretty much useless without stabilization except on a tripod (in the Northeast, where we're dealing with a lot of woods and relatively dark exposures - this would be radically different in Arizona). I can almost guarantee that, handheld on a long hike, running the ISO up high enough to overcome a lack of stabilization will be worse than any competently stabilized camera. I also won't take any non-weathersealed camera out on a hike of any significant distance (long enough that I don't know the weather straight through at the beginning).
For my use, that would leave the Sony with very limited lens selection - of course this varies tremendously with what you're doing - some photographers shoot one lens, and if that happens to be a focal length where there is a Zeiss prime available, and you don't care about the stabilization, it's the best camera in the world (unless that's its close relative, the RX1). I guess I'm just disappointed that there wasn't more versatility in the initial lineup. They got so much right that it is a shame to have the lens selection so screwy. It is so close to being a dream camera for backcountry landscape...
If the Zeiss zoom proves to be a great lens, and they get out a similarly competent (and relatively compact) ultrawide zoom plus a macro lens, I'll rethink a lot of my skepticism. I know long glass will always be a weak point on FF - the laws of physics say it's going to be really heavy, and exotics like mirror lenses or diffractive lenses never quite live up to their promise... If the Sony gets lenses for 70-80% of my needs, and they aren't horribly heavy, I'll think about it really seriously.
-Dan
-
- the D3x and especially the D800(e) are notorious for being extremely picky about lenses. I have used both extensively, and I never found a zoom I really liked on the 800e (even the 24-70 f2.8 Nikkor wasn't quite up to the sensor).
Dan
I have to ask how you can know that?
I moved to the D800 and D800e from a D3s and what I can say, without any fear of contradiction, is that all my lenses (including the Nikkor 14-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm f/2.8 "holy trinity") perform significantly better on the D800(e) machines than on the D3s. What I cannot know, of course, is whether any limit on image quality is being placed there by the lens or by the sensor. All that I (or anyone else) can see is the quality being produced by a particular sensor/lens combination. And all I can really say is what I started with - that those lenses, in combination with a D800 or D800e, produce better results than they did with a D3s (or D700).
As always, I will add the caveat that I make those judgements from the perspective of my standard photographic output - which is basically A3 prints for salon and competition purposes (albeit those prints may be from down to 20% of the original frame). I don't make huge posters, so cannot comment from that perspective.
What the sensors of the Nikon D800(e) show up tend to be limitations in user technique rather than limitations in lenses. I rather imagine (but can only imagine) that something similar might apply to the Sony A7(r).
-
You'll likely get better optical performance with SLR lenses and an adaptor than native lenses esp at the wider end. Being so close to the sensor is a challenge (and a big one) for optics.
There are lots of considerations here, I personally see the A7's being picked up by "some" as an additional body. I really can't see Canikon users giving up their flash system, AF, and dedicated bodies in a complete system change. Depends on your subject and type of shooting, landscape fine few would care about AF here. For events, weddings and working shooters including sports etc, not a hope this will meet their needs.
You have to decide what you want, personally I think mirrorless has been overstated and isn't as mainstream as some think it is.
Choice is small and compact micro 4/3, with lots of lenses but a smaller sensor and their EM-1 is priced badly
APS-C mainstream for most be it DSLR or ILC systems, I think for most people this is the best compromise as prices are better and DOF control still good as well as decent low light.
Full frame, uncertain how things pan out, but whilst I love full frame in some ways, for the vast majority of people it's not worth the asking price (right now)
-
and isn't as mainstream as some think it is.
mainstream is one consumer level body + 1-2 kit lens and no external flash... that is what mainstream is (P&S and cell phones not counted)... unless you are talking about FF sensor users.
Choice is small and compact micro 4/3, with lots of lenses but a smaller sensor and their EM-1 is priced badly
there are cameras below E-M1 with the same sensor and same AF...
APS-C mainstream for most be it DSLR or ILC systems, I think for most people this is the best compromise as prices are better and DOF control still good as well as decent low light.
when the was the last time you actually took the official (from manufacturer) sensor specs and compared the actual (not who knows where it camer from wikipedia sizes) size of imaging area in APS-C sensors and 43/m43 sensors ? specifically for Canon APS-C ;D
-
I have a A7r on order, should be in soon. I found that the weight and size of my D800E was a drawback on shooting for me.
keep in mind I am 77, poor closeup eyeseight, and don't mind tripods. As Brett Weston said: anything more than 100 yds from the car is not worth shooting.
I will hang on to the D800E and my big collection of Nikon and Zeiss ZF 2 lenses, but for getting off my duff and doing some around town shooting, the small camera is a real plus. Nikon really needs to make a FF camera with EVF and a tilt out lcd. Makes serious focusing way easier.
Sony will do well with their stuff, but they won't run Canikon out of business. Room for all.
-
You have to decide what you want, personally I think mirrorless has been overstated and isn't as mainstream as some think it is.
Choice is small and compact micro 4/3, with lots of lenses but a smaller sensor and their EM-1 is priced badly
APS-C mainstream for most be it DSLR or ILC systems, I think for most people this is the best compromise as prices are better and DOF control still good as well as decent low light.
Full frame, uncertain how things pan out, but whilst I love full frame in some ways, for the vast majority of people it's not worth the asking price (right now)
I don't know what other profesisonals use, don't care, but our work has changed, especially for lifestyle advertising.
Consumers are wise to the over manicured cg look of products. Car photos and cosmetics all look cg and nobody believes that their honda is going to look the website photo in their driveway.
The 43 system I bought for some faster video, faster than the RED ones', but I use the olympus because it's the same lens set and I can keep a continuous look for campaigns.
Also I just like it and probably will buy an em1 and no I don't think it's overpriced. In fact it has better focus and usability than the Sony and I've shot my em-5 at 2000 iso, my 1dx (which is the king of high iso) at 4000 and they look virtually identical, which is a good comparison because you can open up 43 two stops to pull the same focus as a full frame camera.
Anyway today we shoot the "real" look in still and motion and what the smaller cameras allow is getting in lower angles, small corners, using car mounts that are one axis and gaff tape rather than large 3 axis mounts, etc. etc.
Also we take a lot of equipment, but today we work fast, use leds, kinos law draw hmi vs. flash and grip trucks with 5 swings. Today everyone has to multitask.
This (with the gh3)
(http://russellrutherford.com/real_plate_1.jpg)
Vs. this a few years ago where everything is constructed and shot with a 1ds3 (I think).
(http://russellrutherford.com/compare_2.jpg)
I think this style is a blowback to the twitter/facebook/instigram look and the fact that all the metrics I'm furnished state that nobody believes advertising anymore.
Maybe they never did, but now they're use to seeing published images that look "real" even if real is made to look real.
In other words we shoot more eggleston, less Avedon, if that makes sense and the A7 isn't really the electronic version of a lecia, it's more a electronic version of medium format camera. Slower focus, more time per image.
For some it's great, for me not today, but i change my mind a lot.
IMO
BC
-
I find any lens over 50mm equivalent pretty much useless without stabilization except on a tripod (in the Northeast, where we're dealing with a lot of woods and relatively dark exposures - this would be radically different in Arizona). I can almost guarantee that, handheld on a long hike, running the ISO up high enough to overcome a lack of stabilization will be worse than any competently stabilized camera. I also won't take any non-weathersealed camera out on a hike of any significant distance (long enough that I don't know the weather straight through at the beginning).
I think the A7/R is weather sealed isn't it?
Regarding exposure and lenses over 50mm, I think you're possibly painting too dark a picture (groan...) I don't exactly live in the tropics (northern England) and yet have managed to get perfectly sharp images from my recent camera and unstabilised lens of choice - MFT and 50mm which would equate to 100mm on an A7.
Of course without IS you may need to up the ISO in lower light but it may still be worth it depending upon the performance of the sensor. What's IS worth? One stop? Two?
-
Choice is small and compact micro 4/3, with lots of lenses but a smaller sensor and their EM-1 is priced badly
APS-C mainstream for most be it DSLR or ILC systems, I think for most people this is the best compromise as prices are better and DOF control still good as well as decent low light.
There's lots of choice in MFT.
I've done extensive testing between MFT, APS-C and "FF" when I owned all three and I decided that the DoF differences between MFT and APS-C just weren't worth worrying about. There's next to no real world difference IMVHO.
-
I'm not sure HOW weather sealed the Sonys are - they claim some level, but a D7100 and a D4 both claim weather sealing, yet one is much better sealed than the other. The E-M1 is sealed like a D4 (as is the Pentax K3), but Nikon and Canon won't seal anything less than a D4 or a 1D that well, to protect the profits on the big bodies. From the initial reports I'm reading on the Sonys (haven't physically seen one yet), they are more like a D7100?
-
Hi,
I would suggest that many of the problems are overstated. Sony and Zeiss are capable of making fine lenses and we are going to see third party lenses like Sigma Art series.
Agreed. The entire premise to me at this point is to get the sensor better than any lens you can put on it, so the lens, whatever it’s capabilities, isn’t compromised by the sensor. This idea of a sensor out resolving the glass has been thrown out with every sensor resolution increase since the 1Ds2, but to be honest if you really want to capture the nuance of a lens and avoid false color, over sampling seems to be the answer.
Additionally, as the sensors get better it is pushing the lens makers to improve the lenses.
While there most likely will come a time where we reach a point of little return, I think it may be more in the 50-80mp range than where we are now. (150 to 180mp on a MFDB)
I just shot the Nikon 14-24 on a Sony a7r and I’m impressed. Sure technically according to some maybe the lens isn’t quite up to the task, but the image was fantastic. It may be the one Nikon lens I keep as I migrate from my d800e kit to the Sony a7r.
-
It may be the one Nikon lens I keep as I migrate from my d800e kit to the Sony a7r.
I noticed elsewhere you said "the Nikon sees a little use"; is that why you'll migrate to Sony a7r?
-
I just shot the Nikon 14-24 on a Sony a7r and I’m impressed. Sure technically according to some maybe the lens isn’t quite up to the task, but the image was fantastic. It may be the one Nikon lens I keep as I migrate from my d800e kit to the Sony a7r.
Wayne, what adapter did you use (Voightlander?) and how did you control aperture?
Victor
-
There's lots of choice in MFT.
I've done extensive testing between MFT, APS-C and "FF" when I owned all three and I decided that the DoF differences between MFT and APS-C just weren't worth worrying about. There's next to no real world difference IMVHO.
DOF is about a stop more than APS-C
I like some of the micro 4/3 lens range it covers a good selection. The problem is I can use my range of 35mm FF lenses on APS-C and whilst 1.5x crop isn't ideal for the wider angle lenses, it's fine for stuff like a 70-200mm. x2 crop is a lot less useful unless you are purely going on reach.
Bottom line is though, you can't get away from the sensor size. I can equal and exceed the performance of the EM-1 with an APS-C camera costing quite a lot less
You could say the same for FF, that the DOF differences are not enough to justify the cost, you get a stop more shallower DOF on full frame.
Depends on what you are looking for. I don't have a problem with the EM-1, it's a nice camera no question. It's just not a £1300 camera
-
DOF is about a stop more than APS-C
DOF is about 1/2 stop more in 4/3" format than Canon EF-S, 2/3 stop more than in Sony NEX, Fujifilm X, Nikon DX etc --- if you use the smaller format at the same f-stop, and thus potentially with a smaller, lighter lens.
On the other hand, if you can use lenses of the same effective aperture diameter (entrance pupil size), and so roughly the same size of front elements, which means using the 4/3" format at 1/2 to 2/3 lower f-stop (and thus 1/2 to 2/3 stop lower ISO speed to get the same shutter speed) you end up with about equal DOF, potentially requiring about equal sized lenses. (I ignore the possibility of converting a lens from APS-S to MFT usage with a focal reducer like the ones from Metabones, which preserves DOF at equal aperture settings on the lens, because to me that is a bit of a last resort.)
It largely comes down to how often a particular photographer feels that even the lowest f-stops available in the lens system render too much of the subject in focus.
-
Pretty good demo here on DOF real world FF v micro 4/3
http://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=25093
I use APS-C 1.5x crop so it would be somewhere around half way between those 2.
I feel that APS-C is a reasonable compromise with decent DOF control, and has products that are relatively well priced.
I can't really see a place for micro 4/3 bar the smaller size
-
I use APS-C 1.5x crop so it would be somewhere around half way between those 2.
it is not, do not kid yourself... first of all 43/m43 is not 2 crop (the size of the actual imagimg area of the sensor is not 4 times less than FF, but 3.7 times less - and that is only if you believe that part of active pixel area in FF sensor that makes its way into a raw file for an image is indeed 24mmx36mm... which is not) and then you 1.5x crop if you will find the actual sensor specs is less than wikipedia-total size of the die size (try).
PS: example : kodak 43 size sensor (kodak likes the precision in measurments) = http://www.kodak.com/ek/uploadedFiles/Content/Small_Business/Images_Sensor_Solutions/Datasheets%28pdfs%29/KAF-8300LongSpec.pdf
active pixel area = 17.96mm (H) x 13.52mm (V) with 3326 (H) x 2504 (V) active sensels, out of which 3264 x 2448 sensels make it out to the picture (see Olympus cameras w/ that sensor)...
( 17.96mm x 13.52mm ) * ( ( 3264 x 2448 ) / ( 3326 x 2504 ) ) = 233 mm^2
give FF sensor a favor and assume it really makes the image off 24mm x 36mm, so 24 * 36 / 233 = 3.7... that is not 2 stops... and there is not 1 stop between 43/m43 and APS-C, but way less
-
IMO there's room for m43, APS-C and 35mm in the compact mirrorless market. I personally have no regard for one size must fit all arguments. That's fanboy stuff. I also think the E-M1 is worth every penny I paid for it. It's a rock solid picture taker with a high-end feel & performance to match.
I've been enjoying my Y/C-mount Zeiss SLR lenses a lot on m43 cameras via a Metabones SpeedBooster. So much so, in fact, that I wouldn't be averse to getting an A7(r) for them. The real deal-maker, though, would be a high quality Contax/Nikon rangefinder mount adapter for the Sonys with a focusing helical for 50mm lenses. I love my Leitz/Leica/Voigtländer/etc. M & LTM lenses but I adore 1950s-era Zeiss and Nikon RF stuff.
-Dave-
-
I love my Leitz/Leica/Voigtländer/etc. M & LTM lenses but I adore 1950s-era Zeiss and Nikon RF stuff.
How exciting to have ye olde lenses resurrected!
-
it is not, do not kid yourself... first of all 43/m43 is not 2 crop (the size of the actual imagimg area of the sensor is not 4 times less than FF, but 3.7 times less - and that is only if you believe that part of active pixel area in FF sensor that makes its way into a raw file for an image is indeed 24mmx36mm... which is not) and then you 1.5x crop if you will find the actual sensor specs is less than wikipedia-total size of the die size (try).
PS: example : kodak 43 size sensor (kodak likes the precision in measurments) = http://www.kodak.com/ek/uploadedFiles/Content/Small_Business/Images_Sensor_Solutions/Datasheets%28pdfs%29/KAF-8300LongSpec.pdf
active pixel area = 17.96mm (H) x 13.52mm (V) with 3326 (H) x 2504 (V) active sensels, out of which 3264 x 2448 sensels make it out to the picture (see Olympus cameras w/ that sensor)...
( 17.96mm x 13.52mm ) * ( ( 3264 x 2448 ) / ( 3326 x 2504 ) ) = 233 mm^2
give FF sensor a favor and assume it really makes the image off 24mm x 36mm, so 24 * 36 / 233 = 3.7... that is not 2 stops... and there is not 1 stop between 43/m43 and APS-C, but way less
Leaving aside the technical argument (which I've no idea if it's correct or not)
I've shot extensively on 35mm and APS-C and yes I've used 4/3 cameras too.
You can clearly see the micro 4/3 shot is near to the FF Canon at around f4 when the Olympus is at f1.8, they're close that's near enough to 2 stops. APS-C to full frame is just over a stops difference. It can't really be argued that APS-C doesn't fall "in between" FF and micro 4/3 erm for obvious reasons..because it does!
Now you might not care, you can use faster lenses on micro 4/3 to get there shallower DOF, as you can on APS-C
You could argue that the DOF isn't a big difference micro 4/3 to APS-C, but the reality is somewhat more stark.
DOF is one thing, focal length another. The effects of background compression with longer focal lengths also come into play. A 50mm on full frame, you need a 25mm on micro 4/3, and just under a 35mm on APS-C. That's probably the reason why it's not as easy to get pleasing blur on micro 4/3 even using a 50mm lens on micro 4/3 you have an equivalent field of view of 100mm, and of around 75mm on APS-C. You're effectively moving back with APS-C and micro 4/3 to get the same framing (hence distance to subject DOF)
I'm not arguing you can't get shallow enough DOF on micro 4/3, I'm suggesting that it's not as easy as APS-C and obviously full frame has the creamy blur crown here. Nor do I subscribe to the "Must have blown out background super creamy" for every shot. Like any photo technique it can be overdone and overused.
What I do say is that it's not accurate to state that the DOF differences micro 4/3 to APS-C are insignificant, clearly to some they are significant enough.
Anyway despite some nice lenses, I've yet to see a convincing argument why people should pay near full frame prices for a micro 4/3 body. Sealing or not that's not realistic in the market place.
-
Barry,
The issue is your claim about the gap between so-called APS-C and Micro Four Thirds, so why bring 35mm format into it? Unless you want to then revive the ten-year old fallacy that the "APS-C" formats are exactly midway between the other two, so let me debunk that with some numbers.
Based on sensor areas (each factor of two an f-stop), using actual specs of 35.9x24mm for 35mm format, 23.5x15.6 (Nikon D7100) for DX, 22.3x14.9 (Canon 7D) for EF-S, and 17.3x13mm for MFT (Olympus EM-5):
1.37 stops from 35mm to EF-S
1.23 stops from 35mm to DX
0.70 stops from DX to MFT
0.56 stops from EF-S to MFT
and by the way
1.94 stops from 35mm to MFT
Since 1.37 and 1.23 are distinctly larger than 0.70 and 0.56, the so-called APS-C formats are distinctly closer to MFT than to 35mm in size, percentage-wise.
-
IMO there's room for m43, APS-C and 35mm in the compact mirrorless market. I personally have no regard for one size must fit all arguments. That's fanboy stuff. I also think the E-M1 is worth every penny I paid for it. It's a rock solid picture taker with a high-end feel & performance to match.
I've been enjoying my Y/C-mount Zeiss SLR lenses a lot on m43 cameras via a Metabones SpeedBooster. So much so, in fact, that I wouldn't be averse to getting an A7(r) for them. The real deal-maker, though, would be a high quality Contax/Nikon rangefinder mount adapter for the Sonys with a focusing helical for 50mm lenses. I love my Leitz/Leica/Voigtländer/etc. M & LTM lenses but I adore 1950s-era Zeiss and Nikon RF stuff.
-Dave-
Dave,
I agree with you most of the time and yes there is a place for all formats, but comparing a m43 to a full frame camera with virtually the same features for virtually the same costs (except lenses of course) is hard to justify.
Wouldn't you love to see your older full frame 35mm lenses on a full frame sensor rather than cropped down to 1/2?
IMO
BC
-
Wouldn't you love to see your older full frame 35mm lenses on a full frame sensor rather than cropped down to 1/2?
Oh, absolutely. That's why I've got my eye on the Sonys. I have fun with some of the old(er) lenses on m43 cameras but that's a secondary thing. I own the m43 gear for its size, weight and the quality of its native lenses. I do get annoyed by the (IMO) over-reverential attitude often displayed toward the 35mm format online and in print. It stinks of marketeering. But I won't let that stop me from getting any 35mm camera that I decide is worth getting. :)
-Dave-
-
I do get annoyed by the (IMO) over-reverential attitude often displayed toward the 35mm format online and in print. It stinks of marketeering. But I won't let that stop me from getting any 35mm camera that I decide is worth getting. :)
-Dave-
Yes, too much emphasis is placed on pure sensor size. A lot of large sensors don't produce.
My thing about m43 is two fold. First I have to shoot mostly primes to throw focus with stills and motion, Even 2.8 doesn't cut it for available light. Second is when I push a file around, especially with lower light or mixed light sources I get a painterly look.
I'm not off m43 though, look forward to the new Panasonic 4k and if I get a break tomorrow will test the em1, before I buy anything new.
For video all of these cameras need the ability to read the whole sensor like a still (I know that's a lot of data) and then down sample later in a computer to cut alaising and moire.
The REDs don't really moire or alaise, at least that i've seen, though the gh3's you have to be careful with.
I still think though, given the price the A7 and R are well placed for professional stills, casual video actually not much comes close right now.
Thx.
BC
-
Barry,
The issue is your claim about the gap between so-called APS-C and Micro Four Thirds, so why bring 35mm format into it? Unless you want to then revive the ten-year old fallacy that the "APS-C" formats are exactly midway between the other two, so let me debunk that with some numbers.
Based on sensor areas (each factor of two an f-stop), using actual specs of 35.9x24mm for 35mm format, 23.5x15.6 (Nikon D7100) for DX, 22.3x14.9 (Canon 7D) for EF-S, and 17.3x13mm for MFT (Olympus EM-5):
1.37 stops from 35mm to EF-S
1.23 stops from 35mm to DX
0.70 stops from DX to MFT
0.56 stops from EF-S to MFT
and by the way
1.94 stops from 35mm to MFT
Since 1.37 and 1.23 are distinctly larger than 0.70 and 0.56, the so-called APS-C formats are distinctly closer to MFT than to 35mm in size, percentage-wise.
Rather a straw man argument, if I annoyed some by using rough approximations then that's life. You can't argue with what happens in the real world
Bottom line is DOF control is better served on APS-C (and it's noticeable), and the point about focal length works against micro 4/3 more so than the actual DOF numbers illustrate. The reduced compression works against micro 4/3 even with very fast lenses (because of the crop factor and shorter focal lengths)
I don't actually have a problem with micro 4/3, but Olympus are fooling nobody with their "full frame prices for micro 4/3"
Yes micro 4/3 does have good sensors, not quite as good as APS-C, not as good as FF but good enough for many.
It's never an easy sell to push something smaller and not offer a price incentive. At least APS-C is a lot cheaper than full frame, it's also cheaper than micro 4/3 with comparative models. And for many it represents a reasonable compromise v full frame. Micro 4/3 doesn't offer any price advantage or sensor edge, it has less DOF control and it's not hard to see why most makers went with APS-C.
-
...You can't argue with what happens in the real world
Bottom line is DOF control is better served on APS-C (and it's noticeable),...
Yes, the real world... and I do wonder why the argument so often comes down to DoF and by that most people mean thin DoF.
As I mentioned I've rattled off many MFT v APS-C (Canon) v FF test shots and of course many more real world shots and for me personally the difference in ability to produce very limited DoF between MFT and APS-C is minimal and really not worth worrying about. Personaly I find that MFT can deliver thin DoF, if that's trhe aim, simply by using wide apertures and if required altering the framing and / or camera to subject distances. Of course this makes the shot a different shot... it'll be framed differently, but it can still be a nice image real world image :D
Of course there are many instances when using "FF" that you can find yourself fighting aperture, ISO and shutter speed to get adequate DoF and in those situations it may actually be easier to get the shot you want with the DoF you want with a camera with a smaller sensor :D
Anyway, those who can see the advantages of MFT are probably already sold on the idea despite any compromises or limitations and those who don't may never be.
-
Anyway, those who can see the advantages of MFT are probably already sold on the idea despite any compromises or limitations and those who don't may never be.
If MFT is "better" than APS-C or FF for a particular application, why stop there? 1" sensors offers even more size reduction.
There seems to be a long-term tendency of photography to move towards smaller sensor size as technology improves (keeping quality more or less constantly "good enough"), yet there seems to be (some) consensus that the potential is larger for larger sensors ("once we hit a technology wall, going larger is the only way to improve"). It will be interesting to see how those two plays out in the future.
-h
-
It's never an easy sell to push something smaller and not offer a price incentive.
Barry,
Will you ever stop ignoring size advantages of a smaller format system offering smaller lenses for many purposes, and instead keep insisting that lower price is the only reason that people might choose a smaller format, even after after all the posts from highly competent and even professional photographers discussing the size factor?
The 1/2 to 2/3 stop difference in DOF wide open that you talk about is part of a simple trade-off with size: the larger formats can achieve that with lenses of the same minimum aperture ratio at focal lengths about 5/4 to 4/3 greater, and so with maximum effective aperture diameter greater by the same factor, and consequent increase in size, weight and typically in cost (glass volume goes up by the cube of those linear scale factors.) The comparison is currently complicated by the fact that the slightly larger format mirrorless system often lack those lenses of equal minimum aperture ratio at equal angular FOV.
Also, comparing the most expensive, high spec body in one format to the cheapest offering in another is, in ypur words, a straw man, perpetuating the digital era myth that sensor performance is the only factor in camera choice. Let me remind you that film cameras in the same 35mm format came at a very wide variety of prices, based on features unrelated to sensors, since they could all be loaded with the same "sensors". With the more expensive of the Olympus MFT bodies, state-of-the-art in-body stabilization and sensor-based AF come to mind.
To put it another way, the vast majority of MFT and "APC-C" format mirrorless cameras are not in price competition with 35mm format cameras.
-
If MFT is "better" than APS-C or FF for a particular application, why stop there? 1" sensors offers even more size reduction.
For some people, maybe many people, 1" format could indeed offer a better balance of size vs performance, especially as technology improves --- if some company puts more effort into developing a good broad lens system for that format than Nikon has so far. More and more, I see lens systems as the slower changing part of a system that leads to more persistent competitive advantages and disadvantages, and so better predictors of future competitive advantage than the rapidly changing electronic features such as "who has the best on-sensor AF this month".
But we should beware slippery slope arguments like "if a somewhat bigger/smaller is better, then an even bigger/smaller is even better, so in the end we will use use either the tiniest camera-phone sensors or FULL FRAME medium format." My lower size limit for a system camera will probably be set by whether the low light handling needs of the brightest zoom lenses viable for that format and within my budget is good enough. For that judgement, I suspect that we are getting close to the limits for sensitivity improvement, with photon shot noise already dominant in most situations (at least in non-Canon CMOS sensors!) so that my lower format size limit will not move down much more than it already has.
-
You can clearly see the micro 4/3 shot is near to the FF Canon at around f4 when the Olympus is at f1.8,
I am sorry, I can't clearly see 4.0 vs 1.8 or 3.5 vs 2.0... but if you can illustrate may be with both pairs ?
-
For some people, maybe many people, 1" format could indeed offer a better balance of size vs performance, especially as technology improves
and PDAF on sensor with Nikon 1 is the best one around mirrorless cameras (in a good light), so if you want to use a small, mirrorless camera in a daylight to shoot moving targets Nikon 1 is the system to use, not m43/NEX/Fuji/Samsung or whatever
-
But we should beware slippery slope arguments like "if a somewhat bigger/smaller is better, then an even bigger/smaller is even better, so in the end we will use use either the tiniest camera-phone sensors ...
If the argument is that "the smaller the better", then indeed, the tiniest camera-phone sensors should be the way to go.
This only indicates that such an argument is false, or incomplete. You might say that I am argueing against strawmen here, but I am trying to encourage people to avoid short politician-like slogans ("m43 rulez"), and rather attach some sober conditions to their statements.
There seems to be some truth in that there are certain advantages for going smaller (size/weight/price), and other advantages for going large (more room for manufacture tolerances, larger equivalent apertures, higher total number of megapixels). This indicate to me that there is probably some application-dependant sweet-spot.
And all of the theoretical/physical speculation is of little value for camera buyers unless one also factor in economic and availability factors. 36x24mm have some lens catalogs that have little to do with the sensor size, and a lot to do with the number/type of FF cameras sold for decades. If you want a 5x macro, an assortement of top-notch tilt/shifts etc, 2x crop may be at a disadvantage until equivalents of those lenses are made for that format (I have no reason to believe that it cannot be done).
-h
-
If the argument is that "the smaller the better", then indeed, the tiniest camera-phone sensors should be the way to go.
This only indicates that such an argument is false, or incomplete. You might say that I am argueing against strawmen here, but I am trying to encourage people to avoid short politician-like slogans ("m43 rulez"), and rather attach some sober conditions to their statements.
There seems to be some truth in that there are certain advantages for going smaller (size/weight/price), and other advantages for going large (more room for manufacture tolerances, larger equivalent apertures, higher total number of megapixels). This indicate to me that there is probably some application-dependant sweet-spot.
With Scooby70 and I at least yes, I would say that you are arguing against a strawman, though it might still be worth saying to some others who do offer such simplistic "extremist" arguments. For example, Scooby70 has clearly stated the balancing consideration that is likely to rule out some formats as too small, and so lead to MFT being in his sweet spot:
Personally I find that MFT can deliver thin DoF ...
That is also roughly my thinking; I rarely if ever crave shallower DOF than I can get with the faster of my lenses (f/2.8-3.5 and f/2.8-4 zooms), and even though I would occasionally like more speed, the combination of big, bright zoom lenses and a larger format body that would deliver significantly better high shutter speed/low-light handling costs and weighs more than I deem worthwhile. On the other side, the lenses offered so far for Nikon's 1" format system offer far less speed (and far less DOF flexibility), with all the zooms being f/5.6 at the long end, and Pentax Q ids even further from satisfying my needs.
Clearly this at most puts MFT in my current sweet spot; I am not arguing that it fits anyone else's sweet spot, or that it will fit mine forever.
-
sorry as this is a bit off topic;i want to use my voigtlander Ultron pancake EF mount 40mm lens on the new sony a7r, but looks like the adaptors are around $400. I really only use one lens so I maybe should just get an E mount 50mm or near. All the options for that look pretty big, is there a small E mount pancake lens out there? Or any more affordable EF to E lens mount adaptors?
-
sorry as this is a bit off topic;i want to use my voigtlander Ultron pancake EF mount 40mm lens on the new sony a7r, but looks like the adaptors are around $400. I really only use one lens so I maybe should just get an E mount 50mm or near. All the options for that look pretty big, is there a small E mount pancake lens out there? Or any more affordable EF to E lens mount adaptors?
Yeah, there are some $15-20 adapters out there since you won't need any electronic communications with a Voigtlander lens. Check eBay.
Later,
Johnny
-
There are lotsa different lens adapters around...have a look on eBay for some less expensive options. Buyer beware, of course. I use mostly Novoflexes but that's 'cuz I have a long history of high satisfaction with their products.
Re. the shallow DOF thing...I treat it as a strawman argument when it comes from online advocates but take it seriously coming from folks who use DOF creatively. (My friend Jeanne named the attached photo "Quantum Tunnel." I took it with a Panasonic GX7 & Zeiss 85/1.4 + Metabones SpeedBooster.) There's no question that subject isolation/separation is easier to achieve with larger formats than smaller ones. For some people this is more relevant than for others. This all oughtta be blatantly obvious by now...
-Dave-
-
Yeah, there are some $15-20 adapters out there since you won't need any electronic communications with a Voigtlander lens. Check eBay.
Later,
Johnny
Actually the voigtlander does need electronics for the aperture and focus confirmation. Any ideas of cheap electronic ones?
-
Actually the voigtlander does need electronics for the aperture and focus confirmation. Any ideas of cheap electronic ones?
Oops, sorry about that. Nope, no ideas.
Later,
Johnny
-
Hi,
I really would like a small kit for easy travel. I could do well with an A7/A7r and a 24-70/4. The problem comes that I need a 70-400/4-5.6 lens, too. Those lenses don't come in small and lightweight packages. I guess an argument for 4/3?
Best regards
Erik
Dave,
I agree with you most of the time and yes there is a place for all formats, but comparing a m43 to a full frame camera with virtually the same features for virtually the same costs (except lenses of course) is hard to justify.
Wouldn't you love to see your older full frame 35mm lenses on a full frame sensor rather than cropped down to 1/2?
IMO
BC
-
... I need a 70-400/4-5.6 lens, too. Those lenses don't come in small and lightweight packages. I guess an argument for 4/3?
As an enthusiast for photographing distant and/or small objects, that "argument for 4/3” has worked for me -- but it is at heart an argument for high sensor resolution (high l/mm, small pixels) even if cropping is required, and for some people, the compromise could be something like the 4 micron pixel pitch of a 24MP NEX body.
I am skeptical about two other options often proposed, if the object is a relatively small, lightweight travel kit with substantial telephoto reach:
1. "Carry two camera bodies that use the same lenses; one 'full frame', one 'APS-C'.
Not my idea of compact!
2. "Soon enough, sensors in 36x24mm will offer the same pixel pitch as those in 'APS-C' or even 4/3, and the lenses will be sharp enough for these extreme pixel counts in the central part used to crop for telephoto reach".
I have read this idea many times over the last decade, but during that time the trend has instead been somewhat the opposite: the ratio of pixel counts between the different DSLR formats has reduced, so the ratio of pixel sizes has increased, and thus the ratio of focal lengths needed to get equal pixel count of the same distant subject has increased. That is, the "smaller telephoto lens" advantage of smaller format systems has increased somewhat.
The main strength of a compact camera with a large sensor is, as Erik and others indicate, when working at roughly "normal" FOV choices, like with the FOV options covered by a standard zoom lens.
-
I really would like a small kit for easy travel. I could do well with an A7/A7r and a 24-70/4. The problem comes that I need a 70-400/4-5.6 lens, too. Those lenses don't come in small and lightweight packages. I guess an argument for 4/3?
Panasonic makes a compact & light 45–200/4.5–5.6 for m43 that would fit the bill. Optical performance is in the meh (wide open) to decent (f/8–11) range. Olympus' 50–200mm is truly excellent but also larger & heavier. I'd travel with the Panasonic unless taking long-reach pics were the reason for the trip.
It's a dilemma. High quality long-reach lenses are neither compact nor light. For most of my pic-taking life I've stayed away from the long stuff, either out of necessity (with rangefinder cameras, discounting the Visoflex rabbit hole) or by choice. When I did go through a bout of "long lens fever" with the coming of D-SLRs I ended up doing a number nerve-wise on my neck/right shoulder/arm. Anyway, I see the A7(r) as best-suited to the 35mm-format focal length range I've mostly prefered...and if I'm honest where I see best: 200mm tops, with a 1.4x TC on hand just in case. This is in line, I think, with what BJL is saying.
A question for folks who have an A7 or A7r: does the camera offer aspect ratios other than 3:2 and 16:9? (It should since this is trivial to implement with an EVF.) Even though I've used 3:2 for most of my pic-taking I really do prefer 4:3 or even 5:4.
-Dave-
-
Panasonic makes a compact & light 45–200/4.5–5.6 for m43 that would fit the bill. Optical performance is in the meh (wide open) to decent (f/8–11) range. Olympus' 50–200mm is truly excellent but also larger & heavier. I'd travel with the Panasonic unless taking long-reach pics were the reason for the trip.
It's a dilemma. High quality long-reach lenses are neither compact nor light. For most of my pic-taking life I've stayed away from the long stuff, either out of necessity (with rangefinder cameras, discounting the Visoflex rabbit hole) or by choice. When I did go through a bout of "long lens fever" with the coming of D-SLRs I ended up doing a number nerve-wise on my neck/right shoulder/arm. Anyway, I see the A7(r) as best-suited to the 35mm-format focal length range I've mostly prefered...and if I'm honest where I see best: 200mm tops, with a 1.4x TC on hand just in case. This is in line, I think, with what BJL is saying.
A question for folks who have an A7 or A7r: does the camera offer aspect ratios other than 3:2 and 16:9? (It should since this is trivial to implement with an EVF.) Even though I've used 3:2 for most of my pic-taking I really do prefer 4:3 or even 5:4.
-Dave-
I'm with you, but the aspect ratio for stills is 3:2 or 16:9.
I love long lenses, especially for motion imagery. They're hard to use, hard to direct the talent but when they work, they have a look of importance, that standard lenses don't offer.
I think the best focal length (in 35mm terms) is 150 to 200, or really wide like 20mm, (for motion).
For stills at least for fashion style imagery 105mm is perfect though most of the world has moved to 85m because of the Canons and Nikon and Sigma followed suit.
Though for fashion oriented imagery, it really depends on the talent. If you have a very slender subject with long limbs and a shape that makes triangles, you can use about anything without changing the look of the subject. With real people or less than A grade talent long lenses make for a much more attractive look as actors tend to be short and curvy. Notice how few times short talent is shown full length in films and television and if they do use wide lenses how they frame the subject so they are only part of the frame, which also compresses the talent.
Also notice how on movies and television how talent is shot slightly lower to make the talent seem taller and have more presence.
That slightly lower angle with a heavy camera is brutal on the back, but looks great.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/RED_PARIS_MUSICIAN.jpg)
IMO
BC
-
I love long lenses, especially for motion imagery. They're hard to use, hard to direct the talent but when they work, they have a look of importance, that standard lenses don't offer.
Tony Scott was really into his long lenses, he was kind of the anti Terry Gilliam.
-
Tony Scott was really into his long lenses, he was kind of the anti Terry Gilliam.
Loved Tony Scott, really loved Terry Gilliam who proves that pharmaceuticals really do work.
Anyone that makes imagery should study Brazil, maybe two dozen times, because it's just an amazing excersize in controlled insanity.
It's not just wide lenses, I don't even know if he understands lenses, he just loves to make the 2 dimensional seem flatter where most directors, dps, photographers spend there life trying to make a two dimensional image have depth.
He's been copied a million times and never well because he understands that the absurd has to really be absurd but not so overdone that you know what's going to happen next.
I always get the feeling I'm looking at comic book art, rather than a "movie" and I love him for his daring.
How he ever got a project green lighted is probably a book within a movie and maybe that's why Zero Theorem was announced in 2009 and just hits the screens now.
IMO
BC
-
Brazil is a favourite film of mine [seen it many times] and Terry Gilliam's book about his film making experiences (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gilliam-Directors-Terry/dp/0571202802/ref=la_B001HCUBUO_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1386464448&sr=1-1) is well worth reading. As is watching the Lost in La Mancha, the very entertaining documentary about Giliam's disastrous attempt to shoot Cervante's Don Quixote. Though I'm sure I heard recently that he was having another go at making it.
I always think of his movies of having great depth to them, so not sure why you think they are flatter than most.
As for him having difficulties getting films made, I recall Gilliam having a big argument with the studios about the end of Time Bandits as they wanted to change the end to one that kids wouldn't be 'upset by'. Yet the reality was, kids particularly loved that ending.