System Evolution

[gmke]

Compared to five years ago when the E-P1 first surfaced, things have changed dramatically. The Reichman article, The Full Frame Myth, gets right to the heart of it. We have a variety of half-frame sensors on FourThirds and APS-C formats that deliver astonishing images. The argument goes, then, that if you are not printing huge, full-frame is no longer needed. But ahem, he hedges on the Sony A7 account. Here is a full frame camera not much bigger than a PEN, but ahem, the lenses are huge, and very much more expensive. I you have to shoot full frame as a pro, that is not a problem, but if 99.7% of what you shoot takes no advantage of the special full frame privilege, why spend the money? Personally, I'd rather have twice as many lenses, a few pro-grade with fantastic prices, than feel cool about stuff I will never shoot. The point here is, with the maturity reached in current state of the art CMOS sensors, particularly in half-frame formats, we need to get off this old sensor fixation and get on with lens discomfort, specifically, the way things play out when a camera maker locks you into a particular line of really expensive lenses that were not designed for the format you are shooting. All of the interesting developments come from Sony, Fuji,  and the FourThirds Duo, Olympus, and Panasonic. I am not sure the Nikon 1" cameras count as innovation or self-defense. I cannot remember, ever, having been this bored with Nikon and Canon as we look into the future. To the contrary, it seems they dread the future. If we say we have 1.33333" sensors (FourThirds), 1.8" and 2.775" (APSC and Full respectively), we are going to soon be drooling on 1.0" sensor cameras too. That RX-100 category is gonna be sweet. I have a funny feeling it will kill the TwoThirds (0.666" and 0.625") sensor category we see in the likes of XZ-2 and LX-5 cameras. And yes, I left out Samsung. I am not yet sold.

[peterottaway]

I used to run a dual system for many years based on Minolta and Nikon cameras as sometimes I preferred one over the other. My last Nikon camera purchase was the Nikon D700 as I have not been able to justify buying their current offerings.

My current working cameras are the Sony RX 10, the A77 and the A7r / EA 4. I took about 3 months to decide on the RX10 as I kept on changing my mind not only from  week to week but day to day - was this a real camera or just a toy? Having grown up on 35mm and 6x 6 it took a while to come to terms with using a 1 inch sensor camera. At the present time if I don't need to use the A77 or A7r,the RX 10 has become my preferred camera.

It seems to me that the micro four thirds cameras are now being caught in no mans land in potential performance and at lowish price points. Should the 1 inch sensor camera lines be further extended then I can't see a long term future for M43. A gallant try but with not a lot going for them  in the long term.

[SZRitter]

It seems to me that the micro four thirds cameras are now being caught in no mans land in potential performance and at lowish price points. Should the 1 inch sensor camera lines be further extended then I can't see a long term future for M43. A gallant try but with not a lot going for them  in the long term.

Really? Of all the mirrorless systems, it seems to be the best. If anything, I would think you are more likely to see APS-C based systems disappear, as the image quality isn't really much better, if at all, and it does not maintain any kind of size advantage to m43 (which has small lenses) and 35mm which has lenses that are roughly the same size but offers better image quality.

Not to mention m43 seems to have been well embraced in both the photo and video community.

But in all honesty, marketing is going to be the deciding factor. The potential for the tech is strong in all of the formats, and it really boils down to getting the right strategy, price and marketing.

[gmke]

One thing is for sure. Reputation, currently deserved or not, counts for a great deal at the cashier counter. Mediocrity at the entry level seems to not be much noticed. What I wish is that all entrants were equally diligent and fair-minded. It would be much more interesting, if Nikon has used a smaller mount and offered a specific set of DX lenses.

[scooby70]

But ahem, he hedges on the Sony A7 account. Here is a full frame camera not much bigger than a PEN, but ahem, the lenses are huge, and very much more expensive.

Groan... No they're not huge or expensive. You have to compare like with like. Yes, you can compare a quality full frame lens with a lens made for a much smaller format or with piece of plastic Canon kit lens tat but is that fair? Compare A7 lenses to lenses of equal type and quality and the argument that the A7 lenses are huge and expensive is seen for what it is... rubbish.

[SZRitter]

Groan... No they're not huge or expensive. You have to compare like with like. Yes, you can compare a quality full frame lens with a lens made for a much smaller format or with piece of plastic Canon kit lens tat but is that fair? Compare A7 lenses to lenses of equal type and quality and the argument that the A7 lenses are huge and expensive is seen for what it is... rubbish.

But to some degree, they are the same.

Since some of the best lenses (but maybe not THE best) lenses on the market are sitting in the smaller format of m43, if your priority is size and weight, you have to compare them. If your priority is more weighted towards IQ, then you can ignore the larger lenses.

[scooby70]

But to some degree, they are the same.

Since some of the best lenses (but maybe not THE best) lenses on the market are sitting in the smaller format of m43, if your priority is size and weight, you have to compare them. If your priority is more weighted towards IQ, then you can ignore the larger lenses.

Well, lets look at the statement again...

"but ahem, the lenses are huge, and very much more expensive"

The criticism of hugeness is valid only in comparison to a smaller format but I think it's a silly argument. It's a bit like saying that my girlfriends shoes are smaller than my wellies. So what? If you want to say that an A7 and/or lens is huge isn't it better to at least consider comparing it to a 5D and/or lens as well as MFT + lens?

Criticism of the cost simply isn't valid IMVHO unless you compare lenses of similar type and quality. Personally I'd like to see a range of less good lenses for the A7 as well as the lenses we've seen to date which are clearly intended to be comparable with higher end lenses for other cameras but that's a different point. It's a bit like saying that a Jag XF is more expensive than a Hyudai i10. So what?

It's a small point and maybe I shouldn't bite but I assume that we all have a brain in our heads and can see the attributes of the various systems. MFT is a smaller system and can have smaller lenses but it's going to struggle to match the ultimate quality of a larger system when it comes to printing huge, pixel peeping or shooting in very low light. If those things are less important than the size and weight advantages then it's a great system to buy into, and I have, I have two MFT bodies and some lenses.

A FF system is going to be better at all those things and whilst the body can be small if you ditch the optical bits and pieces the lenses, and we're talking AF and possibly IS too... are going to be (usually...) bigger simply because of the physics involved.

But I don't agree with a simplistic statement that A7 family lenses are huge or expensive as both criticisms need to be thought about and qualified.

[Paulo Bizarro]

Lot's of valid points, with the usual pitfalls when entering comparisons. For the last decades in photography, even before the digital age, there have been different sizes of films and cameras. Same as today. Remember the APS film format? For a while, Canon, Nikon, and Minolta, have embraced the format, until Kodak dropped it. But today we still have the Ixus name in the Canon line up, it's iconic design has endured.

One thing I disagree is with the argument that Canon and Nikon are boring. How can that be? We have today, from Canon and Nikon, the best ever DSLRs, FF or not, with a vast system that caters for all usages in modern photography. If I feel bored when using my Canon 6D, for instance, then for sure the blame is on me, not the camera.

I fail to see where the excitement, or the not-feeling bored sensation, comes from using a m4/3 or Fuji X camera, and I have used them. Pretty soon the novelty wears out, and the contradictions in trying to blend old analogue commands with technology come to surface.

[SZRitter]

The criticism of hugeness is valid only in comparison to a smaller format but I think it's a silly argument. It's a bit like saying that my girlfriends shoes are smaller than my wellies. So what? If you want to say that an A7 and/or lens is huge isn't it better to at least consider comparing it to a 5D and/or lens as well as MFT + lens?

Yes and no... When choosing between systems, lens size may or may not be a factor. Because the format factor does shift, it does play into the overall equation, but it is part of the equation. To say it isn't is basically ignoring why someone may choose one system or another. Not everything boils down to the sensor size. It's a bit like asking if I should carry a 6x7 or 6x4.5 while hiking. The 6x4.5 should weigh less as the lenses should be smaller. Thus, even though the image quality isn't exactly the same, it is still probably good enough for my purposes and I'll carry the lighter system.

Criticism of the cost simply isn't valid IMVHO unless you compare lenses of similar type and quality. Personally I'd like to see a range of less good lenses for the A7 as well as the lenses we've seen to date which are clearly intended to be comparable with higher end lenses for other cameras but that's a different point. It's a bit like saying that a Jag XF is more expensive than a Hyudai i10. So what?

So, once again, it is part of the equation. If I own a business, and truck A meets all the requirements and costs 75% of truck B, wouldn't truck A be the correct choice?

It's a small point and maybe I shouldn't bite but I assume that we all have a brain in our heads and can see the attributes of the various systems. MFT is a smaller system and can have smaller lenses but it's going to struggle to match the ultimate quality of a larger system when it comes to printing huge, pixel peeping or shooting in very low light. If those things are less important than the size and weight advantages then it's a great system to buy into, and I have, I have two MFT bodies and some lenses.

And the point you make is that we all have our own unique criteria. Which is why that criteria may have outright size as a deciding factor. Or, in your case, it may not. And not all of us have infinite money to devote to buying all the camera systems, so we start judging which systems match our needs. Just saying that you have this knowledge already and ignoring others contemplating these factors is being rather condescending to other people who may not have your knowledge or circumstances.

A FF system is going to be better at all those things and whilst the body can be small if you ditch the optical bits and pieces the lenses, and we're talking AF and possibly IS too... are going to be (usually...) bigger simply because of the physics involved.

So...really you want a Leica?

But I don't agree with a simplistic statement that A7 family lenses are huge or expensive as both criticisms need to be thought about and qualified.

It is simplistic because, in a basic sense it is true. If your primary two concerns are size and price, you probably won't buy into Sony A7. It is only when you enter all the other factors, such as IQ, printing large, or low light abilities, that the A7 again starts to have merit.

[SZRitter]

Lot's of valid points, with the usual pitfalls when entering comparisons. For the last decades in photography, even before the digital age, there have been different sizes of films and cameras. Same as today. Remember the APS film format? For a while, Canon, Nikon, and Minolta, have embraced the format, until Kodak dropped it. But today we still have the Ixus name in the Canon line up, it's iconic design has endured.

One thing I disagree is with the argument that Canon and Nikon are boring. How can that be? We have today, from Canon and Nikon, the best ever DSLRs, FF or not, with a vast system that caters for all usages in modern photography. If I feel bored when using my Canon 6D, for instance, then for sure the blame is on me, not the camera.

I fail to see where the excitement, or the not-feeling bored sensation, comes from using a m4/3 or Fuji X camera, and I have used them. Pretty soon the novelty wears out, and the contradictions in trying to blend old analogue commands with technology come to surface.

If you are getting bored by your cameras, it is because you have either a tech addiction or new gear addiction. If you have a picture making addiction, how do you get bored of any camera? (For the record, I fall somewhere in the middle)

[OldRoy]

Interesting use of "evolution" in this context, where the inheritance of acquired characteristics is implicit...
Roy

[OldRoy]

Commonplace use of 'evolution' -- "a gradual process of change and development".

Yes, I believe I may have seen it used in this way. Trouble is that eliminates the joke about... well, I'll give up.
Roy