Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: Dan Wells on September 10, 2018, 03:25:05 pm
-
We have threads on each of the new announcements, but nothing to say which (if any) make a difference to our individual styles of photography. No one system is right for everybody, but each of these systems makes sense for somebody. Posting this poll on dpreview would create a flame war, but I'm thinking we might get a discussion going here that is more like "what images (if any) do I want to make that one of these systems or additions can help me create better than what I have now, and why"?
My own bias is that I shoot landscape, often miles from the trailhead (my distance record is that the attached image was captured on a 450-mile hike), and I presently shoot (and like a lot) Fuji APS-C. If I want anything from a new system, it is primarily more DR and low-ISO capability (Fuji is pretty good at those things, but I have long wished I could carry a D850 with a great zoom or two as far as I'd need to), and pixels are always welcome, too. I can't give up weather sealing to get the image performance I want, which has caused me not to seriously consider Sony. I have a preorder in (without deposit) on a Z7 with the 24-70 after seeing it at a launch event, and the other camera I'm interested in seeing before making a final decision on the Nikon is the Fuji GFX 50R - lens size may be the issue there (the body is supposed to be quite compact, but the current GFX lenses are too big). I'll go to a Canon launch event if there's one nearby, but I'm not expecting it'll make a big difference for my shooting style, and it's behind Nikon and Fuji MF on my interest list.
What are you shooting? Feel free to attach images! Does anything released recently or scheduled for Photokina/PhotoPlus make a big difference for you? Maybe that Canon 28-70 gets you some images you've been dreaming of for years? Maybe it's Panasonic FF for a great still/video combination project? Perhaps you print so big you're waiting for the 100 mp Hasselblad X2?
-
I plan to get the new Canon R (just the body) and replace my Sony A7II with it. I'll be using it in the same situations as the Sony, where mirrorless offers an advantage over DSLRs - manual focus lenses and accurate autofocus with fast lenses wide open (e.g. natural light portraits). I'll still be using DSLRs for other things but the big difference this makes to me is getting rid of Sony's godawful "color science".
-
Your landscape shot is really great.
I am not convinced that there is any meaningful difference between the 3 FF mirrorless systems we have now. Sure, personal preferences may lead you to choose one over the others, but they are very similar in specs: 40-some megapixels, a new line of great lenses, lighter and smaller than DSLRs, and so on. So buy what you want and go take photos!
-
I may get a second Panasonic GX8 as a backup. :) No interest in any of the new products announced so far.
-Dave-
-
For me, the major issues I consider when buying new equipment are the weight, cost, and flexibility in relation to potential image quality.
For example, if I'm considering the purchase of the latest camera body of a particular brand and format for which I already own lenses, such as Nikon, then, as I understand, any increase in pixel count will tend to increase the 'effective' resolution of all my lenses, in the sense that the higher pixel-count image, when down-sampled to the smaller size of my previous, lower pixel-count camera, will be sharper. All my lenses will have effectively been upgraded, at least to some slight degree, depending on the percentage increase in the pixel-count of the new camera.
That's just one aspect to consider, which on its own, would not be enough to justify the purchase, unless the individual pixel quality had also improved to a noticeable degree.
Justifying an upgrade to the Nikon Z7 will depend on one's current equipment status. Those who already own a D850 will have less reason to upgrade than I have, because I'd be upgrading from a D810, and the additional features of the Z7 seem to incorporate all the benefits of the D850, such as a BSI 45mp sensor.
Checking DXOMark's results, I see that the D850 already has close to a one stop DR advantage over the D810 at ISO 1600, and a 1/2 stop advantage at ISO 200. I don't know if the Z7 will improve on that, but it's unlikely to be worse.
Another obvious benefit of an upgrade to the Z7, from my perspective, is the addition of state-of-the-art image stabilization to all my current Nikon lenses (using the Nikon adapter). Those lenses that don't have any stabilization, such as my Nikkor 14-24/F2.8, would have up to 5 stops IS. That's remarkable. It means I would be able to get a sharp image at 14mm, hand-held, using a shutter speed as low as 1 sec. ;D
As I understand, those Nikkor lenses that already have built-in VR will get improved VR when the lenses are used in conjunction with the IBIS of the Z7.
The above mentioned features alone would be sufficient justification for me to upgrade to the Z7. However, there are also other features which I might find useful, not least of which is the improved Video and 4K capability, and the availability of future lenses which should be both lighter and sharper, especially towards the edges.
-
For now, I'm standing pat with the D800E and my mix of Sigma ART & Nikon lenses. Also using a Nikon D500 for rodeos and other fast action. I really can't justify spending $3,000+ on a digital camera--I'll get no more sales, have no more fun, and value drops so fast on them. The main reason to buy into the new Nikon (and probably Canon) is the new lens mounts and the theoretical benefits those can bring. The selection of lenses is not great now and will probably take ~5 years to really get to where it can replace what I have. In the meantime I'm hoping these new cameras will push the the value of the D850 on the used market to ~$2,000 within a year. I should be able to sell the D800E & D500 for close to that. Further out, ~5 years maybe?, I'm thinking there will be more lenses for Nikon Z that are better than what I now have. (If it's not better, why would I switch?) The one thing mirrorless could do that I would see as a benefit would be to reduce the weight of a first class camera system, but I'm not sure that's happening yet. So, I suppose I'm in a holding pattern, and an opportunist to take advantage of anyone selling off photo gear for >$1,000 less than what they paid for it. Meanwhile, during my wait, I'll continue putting together a portable dark room that fits into the back of my Subaru Forester so I can process wet plates on location. :) I don't need the latest gear to have fun. The 1850s technology can do that for me too. :)
Kent in SD
-
For now, I'm standing pat with the D800E and my mix of Sigma ART & Nikon lenses. Also using a Nikon D500 for rodeos and other fast action. I really can't justify spending $3,000+ on a digital camera--I'll get no more sales, have no more fun, and value drops so fast on them. The main reason to buy into the new Nikon (and probably Canon) is the new lens mounts and the theoretical benefits those can bring. The selection of lenses is not great now and will probably take ~5 years to really get to where it can replace what I have.
So, as a professional, image stabilization, or the lack of, is not a concern because you always use a tripod. Right?
Meanwhile, during my wait, I'll continue putting together a portable dark room that fits into the back of my Subaru Forester so I can process wet plates on location. I don't need the latest gear to have fun. The 1850s technology can do that for me too.
Sounds like you enjoy the process more than the results. :D
-
I am quite comfortable with my Sony Alpha 7 system. I would like to have Live Bulb like Olympus implements, to facilitate astrolandsacpe shots.
I see the recent introductions from Canikon as an attempt to (also) make profit in this market segment. For photographers, MILC has been around for many years already (FF MILC less so), so those who needed the extras provided by such systems have probably migrated already, or supplemented their DSLR system.
IMO, often we see these discussions geared towards mutually exclusive options (you can either have DLSR or MILC, not both). The practice shows that many use both to cater for their requirements.
Sure, it's great to have f2 zooms, but I would never have use for such beasts. I much prefer the designs of lenses like the Loxia 21, that (even with what is now an apparently too small diameter E mount...) that MILC facilitates: small and high performing lenses, instead of the Milvus Distagon 21, for example.
-
My own bias is that I shoot landscape, often miles from the trailhead (my distance record is that the attached image was captured on a 450-mile hike), and I presently shoot (and like a lot) Fuji APS-C. If I want anything from a new system, it is primarily more DR and low-ISO capability (Fuji is pretty good at those things, but I have long wished I could carry a D850 with a great zoom or two as far as I'd need to), and pixels are always welcome, too. I can't give up weather sealing to get the image performance I want, which has caused me not to seriously consider Sony. I have a preorder in (without deposit) on a Z7 with the 24-70 after seeing it at a launch event, and the other camera I'm interested in seeing before making a final decision on the Nikon is the Fuji GFX 50R - lens size may be the issue there (the body is supposed to be quite compact, but the current GFX lenses are too big). I'll go to a Canon launch event if there's one nearby, but I'm not expecting it'll make a big difference for my shooting style, and it's behind Nikon and Fuji MF on my interest list.
And that is exactly why I would no longer consider the Z6, Z7, EOS R or any other camera system with only one card slot, regardless of the other specs, and also why I hike with two bodies. I'm not repeating a three-week-long hike to re-shoot just because a memory card or camera body died at the wrong time. Doubling up important shots on different memory cards with the A7r/A7r2 was a pain - good thing I don't have to do it any more with the A7r3.
Does it happen often? No, but it does happen. Case in point - the recent Canon EOS R demo. And, when travelling, other thing can happen to memory cards that makes storing two copies in different places a very good idea. Obviously, if you're a wedding photographer, not having backups can be financially devastating. But losing photos on a long hike or long/expensive trip can be just as annoying, if less career-threatening, if getting them in the first place took a large amount of effort and money. And many photos can't be repeated even by going again, due to being dependent on weather or astronomical conditions or due to being impromptu/unplanned shots of non-static subjects (e.g. people).
What exactly are you shooting landscape-wise that makes weather sealing so critical? And how did you manage in the pre-digital days, when there was basically no decent medium-format film option with weather sealing? I've shot the A7r/A7r2/A7r3 in everything from seaspray, to sandstorms, to tropical downpours, in temperatures ranging from Siberian winter to the Sahara Desert on the edge of a volcano, and not run into any problems with water/dust/sand, nor any temperature-related failures (apart from reduced battery life in the cold). Shooting landscapes, you camera lives in the pack most of the time anyway, and you have plenty of latitude to use a rain hood. Heavy rain often means raindrops on the front element anyway, which makes for bad photos. It's not like you're shooting outdoor sports in the rain, standing there for two hours (or however long the match is) with no alternative to getting drenched. Weather sealing is nice to have, but, given a choice between that and things like dual cards, AF capability, battery life, lens selection, IBIS, etc., it comes dead last.
-
I'm sticking with my Sony A7RII and A7RIII as work-horse cameras.
The Canon, Nikon and Fuji systems all have appealing points, but none of them seem to offer any really compelling advantages over the Sony system right now for me.
I shoot people for a living, with a (very modest) sideline in mountain landscapes. I like that the Sony can be stripped back to a really light option for the mountains, I can even live with the superzoom 24-240mm in bad weather conditions if I stop down to f/8. I find the results with that relatively poor lens are comparable in detail to what I got on my GH4 with really good primes, but not having to swap lenses is important in snow and wind. And if weight and conditions permit, the Sony 28mm, 55mm primes plus 70-200mm f/4 and a Samyang 14mm f/2.8 for astro landscape are all I need. (I've kept the A7Rii on the old firmware to avoid the star eater issue).
For people in the studio, I really like the Sony 35mm 1/f.4, 55mm and 85mm GM lenses. They give me broadly comparable results to using my Hasselblad H3D31ii.
But the really killer thing about the Sony is that they have a MUCH wider "shooting envelope" - the range of lighting conditions under which they deliver really good results. The low noise high ISO plus IBIS make a big difference to available light shooting in studio or location conditions.
This is the reason I originally bought the Sony. I had Canon dSLR's as my backup system to the Hasselblad, but neither the Canons nor the Hasselblad were capable of shooting in the sort of gorgeous northern low winter sunset light we often get here for 30 minutes or so a day in winter. That light falling on a model is just about the most gorgeous thing I've ever seen, to my eyes, and it was so frustrating trying to shoot good sets of photos with cameras with poor to shockingly poor high ISO (the Hasselblad NEVER goes above ISO100), limited dynamic range to get clean shadows which I can pull up later, and no IBIS.
When I went on a location shoot, I always used to take my RED digital cine camera, the Hasselblad, a Canon dSLR or two, plus two or three big cases of lenses.
Now I can get stellar results with just the Sony's and a single case of lenses, and acceptable results even in very challenging conditions that I couldn't even shoot in at all before.
When flying out on a trip that has made a big difference, especially allied to light-weight lighting solutions. I have a Godox ringflash and an Elinchrom 500 WS TTL unit which between them can largely replace two flight cases worth of Hensel battery generators and heads. Add a handheld gimbal for video and we're good to go for the whole trip.
The net result is that my wife and I can now go on a week's location shoot by air with just a single case of gear and a backpack. That saves hundreds of pounds in excess baggage fees and even means we can hire smaller cars when we get there.
The results are not QUITE as good as the full RED/Hasselblad/Hensel/the works setup. The dynamic range in video is not as good, and it isn't RAW-like. The colour rendition isn't as nice on the Sony as on the Hasselblad nor as smooth and as noise-free in base ISO. Two point lighting isn't a nice as three point lighting, and 500 WS from one generator isn't the same as 1200 WS from each of two, plus leaf shutters. But with a bit of ingenuity and help from the tech, it's totally workable.
We can shoot everything from full-lit studio to location stuff with fill-in overpowering the sun, to stabilised video to available light shallow depth of field out of a single backpack.
I'm keeping an eye on the other solutions because several years in to using the Sony's I still find the colour rendition a bit horrid by default, the ergonomics poor, the lack of articulating screen maddening, the lack of response to the star killer issue annoying, and the removal of the apps in the Mark 3 inexplicable. And I regularly have to search through dozens of pages of menus to do the thing I want to do.
But in terms of flexibility for the weight, and the 80:20 rule of giving me at least 80% of the results from 20% of the effort (and the kit), it's really transformed the way we shoot.
Cheers, Hywel
-
I am going to look at the new Fuji tomorrow, I will decide no there and then or wait for more detailed reviews before deciding to order one.
-
All the new announcements mean that my wallet is safe in my pocket.
-
All the new announcements mean that my wallet is safe in my pocket.
? ? ? I thought you were married!
;-)
-
I'm going to take a long look at the new Nikon Z7. I shoot an D800e now, and also have a couple of GX8s, which I really prefer to the 800, but the size and resolution of the Z7 is appealing. The lenses are apparently as large as the F lenses (of which I have a bunch) so that's a downside for me. I'm wondering if I can get along without zooms...I think all the systems are pretty good, I'd go with Nikon because that's the FF system I'm already in.
My biggest concerns are quality, of course, but the 20mp m4/3 is good enough for most of what I do; and size and weight and weather resistance. Stuff like dual slots is fundamentally meaningless to me -- if I'm going to waste time worrying about a memory breakdown, it'll be with my computer, not with my camera.
-
Hi,
I am not interested in any of those features. But, it is a good thing that we are getting more competition in the full frame mirrorless arena. It is sort of obvious that mirrorless is the future. Canon and Nikon going EVF is just an indication of that.
Personally, I mostly use Canon lenses on my A7rII. So, I could switch to Canon any day I have found that Canon has the better system.
I don't care about high aperture lenses.
Best regards
Erik
-
I am (intentionally) cameraless right now (except for P&S Sony). I have been renting the Sony A7RIII when needed, and like many features. What I don't like is the 24-70 f/4 Zeiss lens nor the lack of lossless compression of raw files. Seriously, lossless compression algorithms are taught in second semester CS classes... are you telling me that Sony software engineers didn't get that far? I also don't like the loss of intervalometer functionality. So, I am going to take a serious look at the Z7 once serious (i.e. where actual images are evaluated not just looks through the viewfinder) reviews start to appear.
My goal is to make a final decision in the next year or so and begin rebuilding a lens collection. (while lamenting my departed Apo-Grandagons and Super-Symmars).
Glenn
-
I'm also mystified by the lack of lossless Raw compression on the Sonys. That and the silly firmware upgrade process. With all my other cameras I can upgrade without needing to be hardwired to a computer. This is 1990s-era stuff.
-Dave-
-
Why do you need lossless compression of RAW files? There is plenty of room on SD cards for hundreds of shots without it.
-
I am (intentionally) cameraless right now (except for P&S Sony). I have been renting the Sony A7RIII when needed, and like many features. What I don't like is the 24-70 f/4 Zeiss lens nor the lack of lossless compression of raw files. Seriously, lossless compression algorithms are taught in second semester CS classes... are you telling me that Sony software engineers didn't get that far? I also don't like the loss of intervalometer functionality. So, I am going to take a serious look at the Z7 once serious (i.e. where actual images are evaluated not just looks through the viewfinder) reviews start to appear.
My goal is to make a final decision in the next year or so and begin rebuilding a lens collection. (while lamenting my departed Apo-Grandagons and Super-Symmars).
Glenn
Have your images suffered from the lack of lossless compression? Is so, can you possibly post an example as I don't see any differences in the tests I've done.
-
Have your images suffered from the lack of lossless compression? Is so, can you possibly post an example as I don't see any differences in the tests I've done.
No, I just use uncompressed raw. But that and the loss of intervalometer capability and the lack of focus stack/shift function suggest that Sony isn't keeping up on the software I need as well as
Fuji and Nikon. If I did portraiture, Sony's eye priority AF would be a driving factor. Doesn't mean I won't end up with Sony, just that I will scope out the alternatives before investing in a system.
Glenn
-
Lossless Raw compression isn't necessary but it is trivial to implement and saves storage space with no downside other than the brief amount of time it takes to compress & uncompress. Using continuous mode? Stick with uncompressed Raw. Otherwise why not cut down on file bloat?
-Dave-
-
I'm also mystified by the lack of lossless Raw compression on the Sonys. That and the silly firmware upgrade process. With all my other cameras I can upgrade without needing to be hardwired to a computer. This is 1990s-era stuff.
-Dave-
Not just hardwired... but you have to install rootkit software to do it. I always use a virtual machine to isolate the Sony upgrade software.
Glenn
-
I'm sticking with my Sony A7RII and A7RIII as work-horse cameras.
The Canon, Nikon and Fuji systems all have appealing points, but none of them seem to offer any really compelling advantages over the Sony system right now for me.
I shoot people for a living, with a (very modest) sideline in mountain landscapes. I like that the Sony can be stripped back to a really light option for the mountains, I can even live with the superzoom 24-240mm in bad weather conditions if I stop down to f/8. I find the results with that relatively poor lens are comparable in detail to what I got on my GH4 with really good primes, but not having to swap lenses is important in snow and wind. And if weight and conditions permit, the Sony 28mm, 55mm primes plus 70-200mm f/4 and a Samyang 14mm f/2.8 for astro landscape are all I need. (I've kept the A7Rii on the old firmware to avoid the star eater issue).
For people in the studio, I really like the Sony 35mm 1/f.4, 55mm and 85mm GM lenses. They give me broadly comparable results to using my Hasselblad H3D31ii.
But the really killer thing about the Sony is that they have a MUCH wider "shooting envelope" - the range of lighting conditions under which they deliver really good results. The low noise high ISO plus IBIS make a big difference to available light shooting in studio or location conditions.
This is the reason I originally bought the Sony. I had Canon dSLR's as my backup system to the Hasselblad, but neither the Canons nor the Hasselblad were capable of shooting in the sort of gorgeous northern low winter sunset light we often get here for 30 minutes or so a day in winter. That light falling on a model is just about the most gorgeous thing I've ever seen, to my eyes, and it was so frustrating trying to shoot good sets of photos with cameras with poor to shockingly poor high ISO (the Hasselblad NEVER goes above ISO100), limited dynamic range to get clean shadows which I can pull up later, and no IBIS.
When I went on a location shoot, I always used to take my RED digital cine camera, the Hasselblad, a Canon dSLR or two, plus two or three big cases of lenses.
Now I can get stellar results with just the Sony's and a single case of lenses, and acceptable results even in very challenging conditions that I couldn't even shoot in at all before.
When flying out on a trip that has made a big difference, especially allied to light-weight lighting solutions. I have a Godox ringflash and an Elinchrom 500 WS TTL unit which between them can largely replace two flight cases worth of Hensel battery generators and heads. Add a handheld gimbal for video and we're good to go for the whole trip.
The net result is that my wife and I can now go on a week's location shoot by air with just a single case of gear and a backpack. That saves hundreds of pounds in excess baggage fees and even means we can hire smaller cars when we get there.
The results are not QUITE as good as the full RED/Hasselblad/Hensel/the works setup. The dynamic range in video is not as good, and it isn't RAW-like. The colour rendition isn't as nice on the Sony as on the Hasselblad nor as smooth and as noise-free in base ISO. Two point lighting isn't a nice as three point lighting, and 500 WS from one generator isn't the same as 1200 WS from each of two, plus leaf shutters. But with a bit of ingenuity and help from the tech, it's totally workable.
We can shoot everything from full-lit studio to location stuff with fill-in overpowering the sun, to stabilised video to available light shallow depth of field out of a single backpack.
I'm keeping an eye on the other solutions because several years in to using the Sony's I still find the colour rendition a bit horrid by default, the ergonomics poor, the lack of articulating screen maddening, the lack of response to the star killer issue annoying, and the removal of the apps in the Mark 3 inexplicable. And I regularly have to search through dozens of pages of menus to do the thing I want to do.
But in terms of flexibility for the weight, and the 80:20 rule of giving me at least 80% of the results from 20% of the effort (and the kit), it's really transformed the way we shoot.
Cheers, Hywel
Everything you just described is what I’m hoping for with the Z7. But with more gradeable video (10 bit 4:2:2), adjustable focus speed for video, better color out of the camera, menus I can understand, better ergonomics, and time lapse.
If it works out to be as good as all that sounds, my travel rig will shrink as much as yours.
-
Why do you need lossless compression of RAW files? There is plenty of room on SD cards for hundreds of shots without it.
If you do any multiple shot images, the extra memory requirements really start to add up. E.g. an A7r2 raw is about 40MB and uncompressed is 86MB. Now imaging doing a star trail with 400 shots. Or a stacked panorama (my friend recently did a multi-row panorama with about 30 frames with a 5 stack at each one).
The extra memory requirements then bleed over into all your backups and is especially painful for online backup.
-
Have your images suffered from the lack of lossless compression? Is so, can you possibly post an example as I don't see any differences in the tests I've done.
I've encountered it a few times while shooting. Usually it occurs in high contrast edges (in the horizontal direction) such as around a window or in a cityscape. Here's an example album: https://imgur.com/a/fRRs2
I just had it happen to me last week in a cityscape (I was rushed and forgot to switch to uncompressed).
-
They're still too heavy and big to schlep.
-
I like how your poll emphasizes the positives. I was struck by how much of the Z internet response was harping on what was 'missing', and it seemed nobody wanted to talk about the opportunity.
As for me, I'm in exactly the same position as Dan Wells. I want lightweight and weathersealed for backpacking and wilderness; and high resolution and dynamic range for nature and landscape. I've got an EM-1mk2 which checks the first two, but it falls a little short on the last two. The lens I can't live without is the Oly 12-40/2.8, and Nikon has a credible replacement in the 24-70/4. I'm hoping I can stomach the modest weight increase because the Z7 has everything I want in a camera: good handling, highly accurate CDAF, EVF, IBIS, a top notch sensor, and (hopefully) superb lenses that pair with it.
The Z7 announcement made me ecstatic.
-
So, as a professional, image stabilization, or the lack of, is not a concern because you always use a tripod. Right?
Sounds like you enjoy the process more than the results. :D
I use a tripod >90% of the time for personal shots, and for most all family portraits I do. Also use one for the "formals" at a wedding. For the informals I use VR lenses, or extremely fast lenses, or flash. Flash works very well. It's very, very rare that i don't use a first class tripod and head for shots. Remember I also shoot 4x5 & 5x7.
I enjoy having fun, and the results are publishable. I now have photos hanging in the main lobby at our airport. :) I honestly don't see how the new cameras with their very limited selection of lenses is going to advance me at this time. An honestly, I'm gaining much more attention & interest with my c.1880s dry plates than with my digital shots. With practice my results have become pretty good.
Kent in SD
-
They're still too heavy and big to schlep.
Mirrorless cameras were never primarily about providing small, light cameras - and the new offerings from Canon and Nikon with large lens mounts proves the point...
They are, however, about innovating new technology - not so evident (apart from the lens mounts) in the new offerings from Canon and Nikon...
-
If I win the lottery this week, I'll put an order in for a Z7 otherwise I'm staying with my D810. The other big question is what the trade in value for the D810 and the f4.0 24-105 zoom would be if I did make the move without winning the lottery. I would not need two cameras for the work I do.
-
I like how your poll emphasizes the positives. I was struck by how much of the Z internet response was harping on what was 'missing', and it seemed nobody wanted to talk about the opportunity.
As for me, I'm in exactly the same position as Dan Wells. I want lightweight and weathersealed for backpacking and wilderness; and high resolution and dynamic range for nature and landscape. I've got an EM-1mk2 which checks the first two, but it falls a little short on the last two. The lens I can't live without is the Oly 12-40/2.8, and Nikon has a credible replacement in the 24-70/4. I'm hoping I can stomach the modest weight increase because the Z7 has everything I want in a camera: good handling, highly accurate CDAF, EVF, IBIS, a top notch sensor, and (hopefully) superb lenses that pair with it.
The Z7 announcement made me ecstatic.
I totally agree with your views.
A large majority of the negative comments about the Z system and Z7 were written by people who never ever intended to buy a Nikon mirrorless body for a variety of reasons, including totally reasonable ones
- existing D850 users happy about their camera (and who wouldn't be happy about a D850) who don't see value in a more compact body and who don't believe/don't think they need (in) the higher optical performance of the Z S series lenses
- trolls afraid to see a new competitor for their existing mirrorless body, one with a more future proof lens mount and a truly coherence mirrorless philosophy that is bound to result in a better system a few years down the road
- ...
I believe that the only totally legit concern about the Z7 is the lack of double memory slot, even if this isn't an issue for many photographers who end up not using a second card in their bodies due to the important performance impact (typically D850, a7rIII, 5DmkIV users). For the rest, even if AF isn't 100% as fast as the best bodies on earth, it is still faster than a large collection of bodies who were used to shoot sports at the Olympics not that long ago.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Mirrorless cameras were never primarily about providing small, light cameras - and the new offerings from Canon and Nikon with large lens mounts proves the point...
They are, however, about innovating new technology - not so evident (apart from the lens mounts) in the new offerings from Canon and Nikon...
Well, I am convinced that 90% of the success of the a7 series is due to 3 objective factors:
1. the compact size of the body and initial lenses
2. their appeal for Canon users at a moment where Canon was falling behind siognificantly sensorwise: the superior sensor compared to Canon DSLRs and the ability to adapt Canon lenses with reasonable AF performance - in other words value without downsides
3. one value added innovative capability - eye AF (but I don't think they invented it, they just improved it)
There are in fact very few innovative technologies invented by Sony. They did a splendid job at assembling in one package ideas that had been developed by others and leveraged their remarkable historical ability for making things more compact.
So I think that it is fair to say that compactness was part of the DNA of mirrorless, and the naming of this category in the forum (compact system cameras) is a very good indication of this historical fact. Of course then we understood that good quality f1.4 lenses and tele zooms on the Sony were at least as large as on Canikon and this initial hope for compactness mostly vanished for those looking for top quality glass. Mirror less before the Nikon Z was about choosing between bulky top quality glass or compact ones with medium quality.
But this is exactly where Nikon is delivering significant value with their S f1.8 lenses. Bring back to life the hope for a compact yet super high image quality system isn't it?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
"But this is exactly where Nikon is delivering significant value with their S f1.8 lenses. Bring back to life the hope for a compact yet super high image quality system isn't it?"
Yes, I'm really excited where Nikon is going with their lens lineup too. I don't really understand the constant clamoring for faster and faster lenses even as higher resolution demands makes the designs ever larger (and ISOs can be pushed much harder).
I imagine they'll switch to producing a f1.2/1.4 prime line later on, instead of an f2.8 line which would make me *really* happy--but so long as they complete all the f1.8 primes and both promised f4 zooms, I should be good for a long while.
I'm expecting to be able to replace my m43 kits with only a small increase in volume and perhaps 300-500g more weight. A price, for sure, but I'm willing to pay it for the sensor.
-
Well, I am convinced that 90% of the success of the a7 series is due to 3 objective factors:
1. the compact size of the body and initial lenses
2. their appeal for Canon users at a moment where Canon was falling behind siognificantly sensorwise: the superior sensor compared to Canon DSLRs and the ability to adapt Canon lenses with reasonable AF performance - in other words value without downsides
3. one value added innovative capability - eye AF (but I don't think they invented it, they just improved it)
There are in fact very few innovative technologies invented by Sony. They did a splendid job at assembling in one package ideas that had been developed by others and leveraged their remarkable historical ability for making things more compact.
So I think that it is fair to say that compactness was part of the DNA of mirrorless, and the naming of this category in the forum (compact system cameras) is a very good indication of this historical fact. Of course then we understood that good quality f1.4 lenses and tele zooms on the Sony were at least as large as on Canikon and this initial hope for compactness mostly vanished for those looking for top quality glass. Mirror less before the Nikon Z was about choosing between bulky top quality glass or compact ones with medium quality.
But this is exactly where Nikon is delivering significant value with their S f1.8 lenses. Bring back to life the hope for a compact yet super high image quality system isn't it?
Cheers,
Bernard
The A9 with its speed and focusing abilities is built around it's truly innovative sensor. Bernard, like always you brush over other manufactures success with your rush to highlight anything you can about Nikon. You claim you are not a fanboy...yeh right.
-
The A9 with its speed and focusing abilities is built around it's truly innovative sensor. Bernard, like always you brush over other manufactures success with your rush to highlight anything you can about Nikon. You claim you are not a fanboy...yeh right.
The a9 is a great camera and have a lot of respect for its abilities, but the point of my post was clearly the reasons why mirrorless was originally successful focusing on compactness... the a9 hasn't much to do with this and there was therefore no particular reason to mention it.
You reading into this fanboyism is speaking more about your own bias than about mine my friend.
Where does this need for constant validation of your choices comes from?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The a9 is a great camera and have a lot of respect for its abilities, but the point of my post was clearly the reasons why mirrorless was originally successful focusing on compactness... the a9 hasn't much to do with this and there was therefore no particular reason to mention it.
You reading into this fanboyism is speaking more about your own bias than about mine my friend.
Where does this need for constant validation of your choices comes from?
Cheers,
Bernard
Really? The A9 competes against the D5 and is hugely smaller and lighter and coupled with the much smaller and lighter 400 2.8 makes a sports package that saves an awful lot of weight and bulk. You don't feel that contributes to the mirrorless compactness? Really?
Add the A73, which is a better camera than the Z6, coupled with lenses like the Sony 12-24, 35 2.8, 55 1.8, 85 1.8 and the Batis 18, 25, 85 and 135...and you don't feel the Sony system has high quality light lenses to form a nice compact system? Hmmmm...
-
Really? The A9 competes against the D5 and is hugely smaller and lighter and coupled with the much smaller and lighter 400 2.8 makes a sports package that saves an awful lot of weight and bulk. You don't feel that contributes to the mirrorless compactness? Really?
Add the A73, which is a better camera than the Z6, coupled with lenses like the Sony 12-24, 35 2.8, 55 1.8, 85 1.8 and the Batis 18, 25, 85 and 135...and you don't feel the Sony system has high quality light lenses to form a nice compact system? Hmmmm...
Yes, the a9 has all these qualities, but it isn't any more compact than the other a7 bodies. The Sony 400mm f2.8 is a great achievement in terms of weight compared to the previous iteration from canon (now in line with MkIII) and Nikon (4 years old), but it isn't more compact.
Sony: 158.1 x 359 mm
Nikon: 159.5 x 358 mm
The lens is so much larger than than the body that you'll need similar packs sizes for these 400mm lenses, regardless of whether they are mounted on an a9 or D5. As a D5 + 400mm f2.8 E FL owner for years now, I believe that the D5 has the right body size btw for these kind of lenses (and I hope that the Z8/Z9 matching them will be larger than the Z7), but this isn't the point of this discussion.
So I stand by my point that the compactness of the a9 has not been a relevant factor that has driven a significant number of photographers towards the Sony mirrorless system. The a7 did initially.
Yes, there are compact lenses in the Sony line-up, but they are overall of average quality compared to their G Master counterparts and in absolute terms.
Just compare the computed MTBF of the Nikon 24-70 f4, 35mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.8 to their Sony counterparts and you'll understand what I am talking about.
It doesn't take any fanboysim to see that Nikon has chosen a different route than Sony from that standpoint. Sony has focused on high-end G Master glass with very high level of image quality, but they are not compact at all anymore.
You don't need to believe me, just check the Sony line-up and tell my which G Master lens is compact?
Do the same with nikon S line (that I am sure you'll acknowledge is the equivalent of G Master) and 2/3 of them are compact designs.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, the a9 has all these qualities, but it isn't any more compact than the other a7 bodies. The Sony 400mm f2.8 is a great achievement in terms of weight compared to the previous iteration from canon (now in part with MkIII) and Nikon (5 years old), but it isn't more compact.
Sony: 158.1 x 359 mm
Nikon: 159.5 x 358 mm
The lens is so much larger than than the body that you'll need similar packs sizes for these 400mm lenses, regardless of whether they are mounted on an a9 or D5. As a D5 + 400mm f2.8 E FL owner for years now, I believe that the D5 has the right body size btw for these kind of lenses (and I hope that the Z8/Z9 matching them will be larger than the Z7), but this isn't the point of this discussion.
So I stand by my point that the compactness of the a9 has not been a relevant factor that has driven a significant number of photographers towards the Sony mirrorless system. The a7 did initially.
Yes, there are compact lenses in the Sony line-up, but they are overall of average quality compared to their G Master counterparts and in absolute terms.
Just compare the computed MTBF of the Nikon 24-70 f4, 35mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.8 to their Sony counterparts and you'll understand what I am talking about.
It doesn't take any fanboysim to see that Nikon has chosen a different route than Sony from that standpoint. Sony has focused on high-end G Master glass with very high level of image quality, but they are not compact at all anymore.
You don't need to believe me, just check the Sony line-up and tell my which G Master lens is compact?
Do the same with nikon S line (that I am sure you'll acknowledge is the equivalent of G Master) and 2/3 of them are compact designs.
Cheers,
Bernard
I truly beg to differ with you Bernard. The A9 size coupled with the 400 2.8 adding the AF and speed of the A9 has totally revolutionized the "bigger is better" attitude of the sports photography market. It's shaken things up quite substantially with the only things holding it back are the 500 and 600 lenses that are coming from Sony.
As far as a compact high quality system based around a Sony camera...again you are totally wrong. You do not need the GM line of lenses to get quality images. The entire Batis line delivers fabulous quality and all are light. The Sony 12-24 is light for this type of lens...yet blows the doors off the much more heavier, expensive and bigger Nikon 14-24. Sony's latest 24-105 is the lightest 24-105...including the yet to be released Canon R version...and it's image quality is better than anything out there in that range.
I've put together a fabulous travel kit based on my Sony system that is very light and delivers great images.
Your view that to get great image quality with Sony cameras you need to use heavy GM lenses is speaking from an ignorant position. I have been using the Sony system for my travel photography coming on 3 years and I know from experience that you can build a light compact system which delivers great image quality...that's from shooting nearly 3 years with it.
As a side note, many of my lenses are still Canon mount so I'm keeping my eye on where Canon might go with their system. Initial release gas nothing for me, but I'm sure Canon has more releases to come.
-
I truly beg to differ with you Bernard. The A9 size coupled with the 400 2.8 adding the AF and speed of the A9 has totally revolutionized the "bigger is better" attitude of the sports photography market. It's shaken things up quite substantially with the only things holding it back are the 500 and 600 lenses that are coming from Sony.
I guess that's the reason why we still only see Canon and Nikon super-teles at major sport events. ;)
I agree that the a9 and 400mm f2.8 are a very nice combination, but let's be real for a change. The 400mm f2.8 has only been available for a few weeks. It has had absolutely zero impact on the sports shooters market. It has the potential to make an impact, but it has not yet.
Your sentence describes what you wish will happen.
As far as a compact high quality system based around a Sony camera...again you are totally wrong. You do not need the GM line of lenses to get quality images. The entire Batis line delivers fabulous quality and all are light. The Sony 12-24 is light for this type of lens...yet blows the doors off the much more heavier, expensive and bigger Nikon 14-24. Sony's latest 24-105 is the lightest 24-105...including the yet to be released Canon R version...and it's image quality is better than anything out there in that range.
Right, Batis lenses are designed by Sony... and since they are not, why bring them in this discussion about the design intent of both companies?
I agree there are some nice non G Master lenses in Sony line up, there are always exceptions.
My point is the intent of Sony and how they have segmented differently their lenses, but it seems that any proposition that doesn't put Sony at the absolute top of everything known to human kind isn't acceptable to you... ;D
I've put together a fabulous travel kit based on my Sony system that is very light and delivers great images.
Your view that to get great image quality with Sony cameras you need to use heavy GM lenses is speaking from an ignorant position. I have been using the Sony system for my travel photography coming on 3 years and I know from experience that you can build a light compact system which delivers great image quality...that's from shooting nearly 3 years with it.
Calling the image quality of a 24-105 zoom lens, be it from the all mighty Sony, great helps us understand your quality referential.
I'll stop here, our respective points of view should be clear by now.
I have a lot of respect for Sony and am totally objective about the impressive values of the Sony system but you seem unable to look at Nikon's offering with similar eyes.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I guess that's the reason why we still only see Canon and Nikon super-teles at major sport events. ;)
I agree that the a9 and 400mm f2.8 are a very nice combination, but let's be real for a change. The 400mm f2.8 has only been available for a few weeks. It has had absolutely zero impact on the sports shooters market. It has the potential to make an impact, but it has not yet.
Your sentence describes what you wish will happen.
Right, Batis lenses are designed by Sony... and since they are not, why bring them in this discussion about the design intent of both companies?
I agree there are some nice non G Master lenses in Sony line up, there are always exceptions.
My point is the intent of Sony and how they have segmented differently their lenses, but it seems that any proposition that doesn't put Sony at the absolute top of everything known to human kind isn't acceptable to you... ;D
Calling the image quality of a 24-105 zoom lens, be it from the all mighty Sony, great helps us understand your quality referential.
I'll stop here, our respective points of view should be clear by now.
I have a lot of respect for Sony and am totally objective about the impressive values of the Sony system but you seem unable to look at Nikon's offering with similar eyes.
Cheers,
Bernard
Firstly, I don't care who manufactures the lenses for my camera...I have a compact system of lenses for the Sony camera that deliver great images. Seems to me Sony and Zeiss have a working relationship...so who cares what label is on the lens...other than a fanboy.
Secondly...have you shot any images with the Sony 24-105? Thought so. People who have including a very respective lens rental employee claim the lens delivers prime quality images...especially at the wide end. Same goes for the 12-24 lens.
I sell my prints...many very large in the 72" range and never once has any customer complained about the lack of image quality. People that chase that ultimate lens for that last drop of image quality, digging deep into the image corners for it...are measurebaters than photographers as in the end where the rubber hits the road...the print, no one gives an ounce of damn for that far corner pixel shining bright.
That's the bottom line IMHO.
-
I sell my prints...many very large in the 72" range and never once has any customer complained about the lack of image quality. People that chase that ultimate lens for that last drop of image quality, digging deep into the image corners for it...are measurebaters than photographers as in the end where the rubber hits the road...the print, no one gives an ounce of damn for that far corner pixel shining bright.
Sure, but then why bother discussing camera system/lens image quality if you think it isn't that important and that good enough works for you?
Wouldn't it come across as more reasonable to state "Nikon's S series compact f1.8 lenses may be better than their Sony equivalent, but it's not important for my applications"?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sure, but then why bother discussing camera system/lens image quality if you think it isn't that important and that good enough works for you?
Wouldn't it come across as more reasonable to state "Nikon's S series compact f1.8 lenses may be better than their Sony equivalent, but it's not important for my applications"?
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, I'm always interested in what new tech brings to the table...but am realistic enough not to chase the rabbit down the hole. Three years ago I dumped my DSLR gear and moved to mirrorless as I saw a path to lighter gear with just as good and arguably better image quality. The savings in weight and bulk was enough of a carrot to make me leap. I'm always interested in improving my photo taking experiences and always looking at new gear. I'm not chasing the new shiny toy nor am I chasing the pixel peeping never ending image quality. It's all about a better photography experience for me.
Things like system weight, manual focus using EVF, Eye-AF which takes care of mundane focusing and let's me concentrate on that moment...etc.. are much more important to me than the pixels in the corner that no one notices when viewing the prints or books.
Looking back Bernard, I was suckered in by Nikon's marketing hype with their mysterious camera views of their "revolutionary" mirrorless camera...maybe there might be some substance to the hype...unfortunately I find nothing but hype.
-
Looking back Bernard, I was suckered in by Nikon's marketing hype with their mysterious camera views of their "revolutionary" mirrorless camera...maybe there might be some substance to the hype...unfortunately I find nothing but hype.
Right... why not avoiding to comment moving forward on this un-interesting and over-hyped Nikon Z system?
I am not sure you have convinced that many people to date that your views were objective and fair, it seems to upset you quite a bit to see others find value,... there is really not much for you in this discussion from what I can tell.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Right... why not avoiding to comment moving forward on this un-interesting and over-hyped Nikon Z system?
I am not sure you have convinced that many people to date that your views were objective and fair, it seems to upset you quite a bit to see others find value,... there is really not much for you in this discussion from what I can tell.
Cheers,
Bernard
Ditto Bernard. The topic has to do with any interest in recent mirrorless releases. I guess my answer is no...nothing new hear. But that a valid post hear as the question was not what interests people about the new releases, but is there any interest.
Sorry you feel you need to restrict people from discussing that don't line up with your views.
-
Sorry you feel you need to restrict people from discussing that don't line up with your views.
Just when I thought we had agreed on the whole thing... ;D
We agree that Sony makes great equipment at least. That’s a start.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
When I'm hiking with a camera, it lives around my neck on a BlackRapid strap positioned over my backpack straps. If I have to get the camera out of my backpack, far too often I don't bother with the shot. The exception is in really active rain conditions, where I will try to get it some extra protection. On shorter (day or single overnight) hikes, I will carry a Gitzo Series 1 tripod in my backpack or in the outside compartment, but the tripod isn't really compatible with my longer hikes, although I've considered one of the new Gorillapod models to have something, and I certainly improvise quite a bit from the Rock E. Stone school of camera support. This type of photography puts a huge premium on toughness and sealing - not everybody needs it, but I really do. IBIS or a well-stabilized lens are also essential to me, since there are so many times when a tripod is too heavy or not to hand.
So far, the best option for this combination has been Fuji (assuming the weight of a D850 and a pro zoom or two is too much, and it is). Nikon has offered me an option with double the pixels and improved DR in the Z7. I'd rather have dual card slots, but I see Thom Hogan's point that a single XQD is probably not the most likely point of failure in the camera... I can't afford the weight to carry an extra body, but I will have one ready to be mailed out if needed (if I carry a Z7 on my next long hike, my backup will be Fuji, rather than a second Z7, because I can't afford two of them...).
-
My Olympus cameras have gone with me on my Peak Designs shoulder clip through heavy, lashing rain plenty of times. Street photography during thunderstorms is grand. I'll probably wait to see some shower tests on youtube before subjecting my Z7 to the same level, but I'm optimistic. It's definitely a big one that Sony hasn't convinced me on.
-
When I'm hiking with a camera, it lives around my neck on a BlackRapid strap positioned over my backpack straps. If I have to get the camera out of my backpack, far too often I don't bother with the shot. The exception is in really active rain conditions, where I will try to get it some extra protection. On shorter (day or single overnight) hikes, I will carry a Gitzo Series 1 tripod in my backpack or in the outside compartment, but the tripod isn't really compatible with my longer hikes, although I've considered one of the new Gorillapod models to have something, and I certainly improvise quite a bit from the Rock E. Stone school of camera support. This type of photography puts a huge premium on toughness and sealing - not everybody needs it, but I really do. IBIS or a well-stabilized lens are also essential to me, since there are so many times when a tripod is too heavy or not to hand.
So far, the best option for this combination has been Fuji (assuming the weight of a D850 and a pro zoom or two is too much, and it is). Nikon has offered me an option with double the pixels and improved DR in the Z7. I'd rather have dual card slots, but I see Thom Hogan's point that a single XQD is probably not the most likely point of failure in the camera... I can't afford the weight to carry an extra body, but I will have one ready to be mailed out if needed (if I carry a Z7 on my next long hike, my backup will be Fuji, rather than a second Z7, because I can't afford two of them...).
This is similar to the problem that I've experienced when I do a lot of hiking or simply walking around the areas I visit, with camera over shoulder.
The problem could be resolved by sacrificing image quality and buying, for example, a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 IV superzoom, which would meet most of my requirements in terms of weight and focal length range, with the possible exception of very wide angle requirements which could, however, be met most of the time by stitching images.
I've experienced the benefits of a Nikon DX5300 with 18-140 DX lens, which weighs a total of around 1.1Kg. The Sony RX10 IV also weighs about 1.1Kg, and so does the Nikon Z7 with 24-70/F4 zoom attached. All three systems are the same weight and differ mainly in image quality and zoom range. The longer the zoom range, the lower the quality.
That's the problem I'm tussling with. Should I give up my obsession with technical image quality for the sake of just getting the shot? A shot with the Sony RX10 4, at full focal length, would undoubtedly be better quality than a Z7 shot at 70mm, cropped to a 600mm equivalent. By the time I'd changed lenses on the Z7 to get a 600mm equivalent in DX mode, I would often have lost the shot.
However, the quality of Z7 shots between 24 and 70mm would obviously be much, much better than the other systems at the same equivalent focal lengths. I tend to experience disappointment when I'm processing my images on a high-resolution monitor, and see noise and/or lack of sharpness.
-
I have found that a monopod can really help with stability in my cases for day time shooting on day hikes.
It makes the process of shooting single row handheld panos much more accurate also, especially if a nodalpoint slider is used.
I tend to keep my camera in my pack with the monopod attached to the pack, and then fit the camera to the monopod when I walk through a scenic location, for a few hundreds of meters typically. And then pack it back in.
It's just me, but I find that this helps me change from a walk mode to a photography mode with different speed and different levels of attention to the scenery.
For what it's worth.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
In early 2015 I decided to move from Canon DSLR system (at the time I had the Zeiss 21 Distagon, 50mm lens, and telezoom for hiking) to Sony Alpha 7. The main reason was to reduce weight, but not quality, thanks to some Sony lenses (ZA 35 f2.8, ZA 55 f1.8), complemented later on with Batis and Loxia.
I understand that Canikon needs to enter with a bang, hence the humongous f2 zoom and f1.2 and f0.95 lenses. I have no interest in them. Also, new Nikon f1.8 lenses are really too big compared to native options for the Alpha 7 system, so I have no interest in that.
If I want a normal f1.2 lens, I can get a Voigtlander FE 40 1.2, for example. For what I shoot, MF is plenty good.
-
I'm also mystified by the lack of lossless Raw compression on the Sonys. That and the silly firmware upgrade process. With all my other cameras I can upgrade without needing to be hardwired to a computer. This is 1990s-era stuff.
-Dave-
As a Sony user... I completely agree
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
I switched to Sony in 2016 from Canon and I have been slowly changing the lenses... I like my Sony camera and as Alan said, I will now need to win the lottery to consider changing... so Sony for the time being.
I mainly do landscape focusing with liveview... so, I don’t ask much of a camera... the major limitation in my photography is me...
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
Does anything announced recently help me?
Not really. I would have considered the Nikon Z7 because of the nice highres sensor, but only if it would accept Zeiss lenses.
The Otus and Milvus lines should work, but, as these lenses are designed for DSLR with larger flange to sensor distances, they are not a good fit ... too big and too heavy.
On the other hand, Batis and Loxia would be very nice to use with the Nikon Z7, but it seems, Nikon won't cooperate with Zeiss for the respective protocols to guarantee a seamless function.
Won't hold my breath, but maybe an elegant solution comes up ...
-
Does anything announced recently help me?
Not really. I would have considered the Nikon Z7 because of the nice highres sensor, but only if it would accept Zeiss lenses.
The Otus and Milvus lines should work, but, as these lenses are designed for DSLR with larger flange to sensor distances, they are not a good fit ... too big and too heavy.
On the other side, Batis and Loxia would be very nice to use with the Nikon Z7, but it seems, Nikon won't cooperate with Zeiss for the respective protocols to guarantee a seamless function.
Won't hold my breath, but maybe an elegant solution comes up ...
I would expect Loxia lenses would be adapted, after all, they can make it without electronics... they are completely mechanical.
Batis lenses I doubt it. Zeiss has never implemented something with AF if they couldn’t get access to the protocol from the manufacturer. Since these lenses, rumors say, are designed by Tamron in collaboration with Zeiss, maybe Tamron releases under their own brand (my theory), but probably without Zeiss famous coatings...
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
<snip>
On the other hand, Batis and Loxia would be very nice to use with the Nikon Z7, but it seems, Nikon won't cooperate with Zeiss for the respective protocols to guarantee a seamless function.
Won't hold my breath, but maybe an elegant solution comes up ...
If what Nikon says about its new lens quality is true, what would be the advantage of going to Zeiss, even if they could be seamlessly adapted?
-
If what Nikon says about its new lens quality is true, what would be the advantage of going to Zeiss, even if they could be seamlessly adapted?
That will be a very interesting question to answer in the following months and years.
But even if the answer would be favorable for Nikon (seems that chances are good), there remain still two problems:
1) Zeiss as of September 2018 has already 9 lenses ready for shipping (only counting Batis and Loxia).
2) I am quite fond of manual lenses and appreciate that Zeiss (Loxia) and Leica (M) do still manufacture this kind of treasures.
-
I have been using several Loxias on the AR7III. Love the image quality and the feel of "good-ol" manual focus. What I don't love is the ergonomics of mounting and unmounting the Loxias. There is nowhere to grab the lens body, so you end up racking the focus helicoid from one end to the other just to mount and unmount the lens. Shooting a focus stack without auto-diaphragm is also slow. Focus, stop down, shoot, open up to a reasonable aperture, focus again, repeat. So while the Loxias are the main thing drawing me to Sony, I am interested to see how using the Nikon 35mm F/1.8 compares with auto-diaphragm and software driven focus "shifting." If the image quality is there, that could woo me. And while the Loxias are wonderfully small, they are not particularly lightweight.
Glenn
-
Since these lenses, rumors say, are designed by Tamron in collaboration with Zeiss, maybe Tamron releases under their own brand (my theory), but probably without Zeiss famous coatings...
My understanding is the Batises are Zeiss designs tweaked by Tamron to suit their manufacturing processes. I doubt (but don't claim to know either way) Tamron has the rights to make 'em under their own name.
-Dave-
-
Not sure that will help. Reports indicate that F mount Tamron lenses on FTZ don’t focus well (or at all).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My understanding is the Batises are Zeiss designs tweaked by Tamron to suit their manufacturing processes. I doubt (but don't claim to know either way) Tamron has the rights to make 'em under their own name.
-Dave-
Yes, If that it is true, I don't see it either...
-
This is similar to the problem that I've experienced when I do a lot of hiking or simply walking around the areas I visit, with camera over shoulder.
The problem could be resolved by sacrificing image quality and buying, for example, a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 IV superzoom, which would meet most of my requirements in terms of weight and focal length range, with the possible exception of very wide angle requirements which could, however, be met most of the time by stitching images.
I've experienced the benefits of a Nikon DX5300 with 18-140 DX lens, which weighs a total of around 1.1Kg. The Sony RX10 IV also weighs about 1.1Kg, and so does the Nikon Z7 with 24-70/F4 zoom attached. All three systems are the same weight and differ mainly in image quality and zoom range. The longer the zoom range, the lower the quality.
That's the problem I'm tussling with. Should I give up my obsession with technical image quality for the sake of just getting the shot? A shot with the Sony RX10 4, at full focal length, would undoubtedly be better quality than a Z7 shot at 70mm, cropped to a 600mm equivalent. By the time I'd changed lenses on the Z7 to get a 600mm equivalent in DX mode, I would often have lost the shot.
However, the quality of Z7 shots between 24 and 70mm would obviously be much, much better than the other systems at the same equivalent focal lengths. I tend to experience disappointment when I'm processing my images on a high-resolution monitor, and see noise and/or lack of sharpness.
For a hardcore backpacker with an interest in photography the Sony RX100 vi makes the most sense.
I still find hard too let go on the potential image quality though and on WR, although a small camera like that can be easier to protect from harsh elements when you don't have to take a shot.
I keep going through multiple combos hoping to find the best hiking combo. I used more the Oly E-M5ii with the 12-100 lately and it's a good combo, but it takes more effort than my Fuji to get nice colors and to work with difficult scenes. I expect the Nikon to have the best files out there and the 24-70 looks good, I would like a slightly longer lens. The 15-30 is promising too.
-
Com’on, on my last trek with 800m elevation climb I packed a H6D-100c, 100mm f2.2, 300mm f4.5, pano head and RSS 2 series tripod... I wish I had the 28mm with me as well... ;)
Ok, I have to confess that the part when I had to carry our friends 6 years old son for a few hundred meters was a bit much... ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Com’on, on my last trek with 800m elevation climb I packed a H6D-100c, 100mm f2.2, 300mm f4.5, pano head and RSS 2 series tripod... I wish I had the 28mm with me as well... ;)
Ok, I have to confess that the part when I had to carry our friends 6 years old son for a few hundred meters was a bit much... ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
I just came back yesterday of 4 days in the Pyrenees... several climbs carrying my Sony A7r II, 24-70 GM and 12-24, plus Gitzo 3541xls and arca Swiss z1... extra clothes, food, water... and I wished the whole time why the hell I didn’t choose something lighter like m43...
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
I just came back yesterday of 4 days in the Pyrenees... several climbs carrying my Sony A7r II, 24-70 GM and 12-24, plus Gitzo 3541xls and arca Swiss z1... extra clothes, food, water... and I wished the whole time why the hell I didn’t choose something lighter like m43...
I guess we both need to spend more time at the gym. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Com’on, on my last trek with 800m elevation climb I packed a H6D-100c, 100mm f2.2, 300mm f4.5, pano head and RSS 2 series tripod... I wish I had the 28mm with me as well... ;)
Ok, I have to confess that the part when I had to carry our friends 6 years old son for a few hundred meters was a bit much... ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
C'mon, Bernard. The issue is not just the physical strength required to carry a lot of gear in a backpack, but the readiness to capture the moment.
If you're only concerned with landscape shots, then you probably have the time to stop at any given location that offers a good perspective, take off your backpack, fit the appropriate lens to your camera, and attach the camera to a tripod, if necessary. Even if the subject is a changing sunset, you're unlikely to miss the moment, although that could happen if a cloud were to quickly obscure the sun whilst you were fiddling around with your gear. ;)
One of the main interests I have when trekking in Nepal, for example, is not just the magnificent scenery and snow-capped mountains, but the unusual activities of the local people. At any given moment one might suddenly come across a Tibetan in traditional costume, galloping around the corner on a horse, or a Langur monkey swinging from a nearby tree, or a beautiful lady thrashing a mound of rice grains in her backyard. ;)
-
C'mon, Bernard. The issue is not just the physical strength required to carry a lot of gear in a backpack, but the readiness to capture the moment.
If you're only concerned with landscape shots, then you probably have the time to stop at any given location that offers a good perspective, take off your backpack, fit the appropriate lens to your camera, and attach the camera to a tripod, if necessary. Even if the subject is a changing sunset, you're unlikely to miss the moment, although that could happen if a cloud were to quickly obscure the sun whilst you were fiddling around with your gear. ;)
One of the main interests I have when trekking in Nepal, for example, is not just the magnificent scenery and snow-capped mountains, but the unusual activities of the local people. At any given moment one might suddenly come across a Tibetan in traditional costume, galloping around the corner on a horse, or a Langur monkey swinging from a nearby tree, or a beautiful lady thrashing a mound of rice grains in her backyard. ;)
I know Ray, fully agreed. I was just kidding.
I was in Nepal too and captured quite a few nice one on the way.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
None of the new models is on my wish-list, but the Fujifilm XT3 comes closest because I like moderately compact EVF cameras but want better all-round AF, so its promise of greatly improved main-sensor hybrid PDAF would make it distinctly better for me than previous X system models. The potential for improved combinations of AF performance and compactness in other new systems is good news for me too, like the new Z and R mirrorless systems, though only with a few lenses in each system serving well for a somewhat compact combo, with those over-sized sensors hampering the downsizing!
-
I guess we both need to spend more time at the gym. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes, I do
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
I guess that we don't have enough answers for this survey to be of statistical significance, but so far it looks pretty good for the Z system.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The Z7 lab samples just showed up on Imaging Resource - they have samples next to the D850 and A7rIII, and I was able to use their comparometer to look at it next to the Fuji GFX 50S. It's darn near indistinguishable from the D850, as one might expect - the tiny differences seem to favor the Z7, but are as likely to be the test conditions as anything (slightly different lighting)?. The GFX performs better, but not enormously so...
-
I guess that we don't have enough answers for this survey to be of statistical significance, but so far it looks pretty good for the Z system.
Cheers,
Bernard
I just placed my pre-order. I will replace my Oly u43 system - the difference in weight is not great and the upgrade in image quality (assuming comparable to D850) is enormous. If it works out well I'll sell my D850 and gradually upgrade my lenses where appropriate. If not, I'll keep the D850 for "best" and still have a superb "travel" system.
Apart from anything else it will be nice to standardise on one battery, flash system etc. !!
-
Yes, same here!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I just placed my pre-order. I will replace my Oly u43 system - the difference in weight is not great and the upgrade in image quality (assuming comparable to D850) is enormous. If it works out well I'll sell my D850 and gradually upgrade my lenses where appropriate. If not, I'll keep the D850 for "best" and still have a superb "travel" system.
Apart from anything else it will be nice to standardise on one battery, flash system etc. !!
I'm a bit hesitant to place an order yet. It seems the price of the Z7 in Australia, including a 24-70 F/4 S lens and FTZ adapter, is around A$6,500. The last time I spent that much on new camera equipment was in 2005 when I bought the Canon 5D with the new 24-105 F/4 zoom. The package was around A$5,500, roughly equivalent to $6,500 today, taking inflation into account.
However, the 13mp full-frame 5D was a very significant upgrade from my 6mp, cropped format, 60D, so I was able to justify spending that amount. The only thing that displeased me about the 5D was noise and banding in the deep shadows.
-
I am looking at the developments with interest, but am still too invested in the current Canon lenses to get a new system. I might rent a mirrorless body with Canon adapter, to see if I like it. I don't print large.
-
I am looking at the developments with interest, but am still too invested in the current Canon lenses to get a new system. I might rent a mirrorless body with Canon adapter, to see if I like it. I don't print large.
I also still have a number of Canon lenses which I no longer use. I switched to Nikon partly because I could use the Nikkor 14-24/F2.8, which wasn't full functional with an adapter on my 5D, and partly because the Nikon sensors have much better DR.
It has occurred to me that maybe the flange distance and diameter of the new Z7 would make it possible to design an adapter for the Z7 which would enable use of Canon lenses, with full functionality, and that 3rd parties might already be designing such an adapter.
I recently came across the following comment relevant to this.
"In the case of Nikon Z, the flange distance is a very short 16mm — the shortest among full frame mirrorless cameras. This means Nikon Z cameras can theoretically use lenses from almost any DSLR, and even other mirrorless lenses, including lenses from Canon EF, Micro Four Thirds (19.25mm), Sony E-mount (18mm), Fuji X-mount (17.7mm), and of course Nikon F-mount."
-
Yes the weight of the cameras is a major factor, besides IQ. For instance,
Nikon Z6 + 24-70, 1175g, 2.5lb
Canon RF + 24-105, 1360g, 3lb
Sony A7III + 28-70, 895g, 2lb
Fuji X-T3 + 18-55, 849g, 1.86lb
As I have a Fuji X-T2 and a Canon5D3, my lightweight camera is the X-T2 which I now use most of the time with the 55-200 lens as well as the 18-55, and I am very happy with the results. This means that the only candidate is the X-T3 which I bought today, trading in my X-T1. I cannot justify the cost of changing systems, particularly as I have some Fuji primes which I find excellent.
That's just my view.
Best wishes,
Jonathan
-
I was really psyched about the Panasonic, but after seeing it, I was kind of like, I could switch from my Sony, but I would be trading laterally with no bonuses - other than the option of using expensive Leica lenses.
I was also thinking about selling all my Sony and going to the GFX, but at the moment that seems like a plus for resolution, but a minus for video. I think I'll just buy a couple of lenses instead for the Sony. Besides with the Cambo Actus I have a very high MP camera for stills and architecture.
What could the GFX do for me in the end that the A7r3 can? not much.
It is also at a point where you really have a hard time buying a crappy camera nowadays...
-
NO. All offerings are interesting, but not really that much better than my current systems.
Age. My age in years dictate I carry a small system.
My eyes made me let my Ms be used by any family member.
I have pared my Nikons to the bone. Just the Df and the 50/1.8. ( btw it was the only cam/lens in SE for 3 months ).
I use the Fuji xp2 and added a xh-1. I am selling off most Fuji lenses I have.
I want less weight, a wide, mid prime. And a zoom for tele. The Fuji 55-200 is still heavy, for me.
The 35mm FF MILC does not change the physics of optics.
I guess my sweet spot is 24 MP.
A Fuji just about meets most of my requirements.
But PHOTOKINA happenings help me pass a few hours.
p.s. I am still not convinced with the FUJI foliage renderings.
-
It is also at a point where you really have a hard time buying a crappy camera nowadays...
Yup! The tools are pretty darn good. Time to work on the fools. ;D
-Dave-
-
Although a FF Foven is very interesting to me....
-
...
I use the Fuji xp2 and added a xh-1. I am selling off most Fuji lenses I have.
I want less weight, a wide, mid prime. And a zoom for tele. The Fuji 55-200 is still heavy, for me.
...
A Fuji just about meets most of my requirements.
...
p.s. I am still not convinced with the FUJI foliage renderings.
With the Capture One express now free there is another option out there, although truth be told I was never that impressed with it in the past; sharpness was a little better, colors weren't. I'll have more time for testing now though.
A wide mid prime? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by it. The 14 2.8 is wide and light, then you have the newest F2 primes that gain sharpness but lose character at least for the 35mm. The 27 2.8 is as light as it gets and sharp while at it. The newly announced 16 2.8 seems interesting.
-
Hi armand.
A wide, a mid prime, and a tele.
I have the 14/2.8. ( and the 16/1.4 )
Mid prime, I use the 35/1.4. Prefer it to the 35/2.
Tele..90/2 collecting dust, 56/1.2..sold it, use the 50/2 but the 55-200 seems a possibility for me.
I have been usin C1 pro for quite sometime and is satisfactory for my needs.
The only issue with Fuji X-trans for me remains the intermittent mushy foliage issue. Hence I tend to carry a Nikon too.
For most of my needs the Fuji remains the choice, for me. I have my iPhone for the little video I do.
The announcements at PK 2018...don’t add anything for me.
With the Capture One express now free there is another option out there, although truth be told I was never that impressed with it in the past; sharpness was a little better, colors weren't. I'll have more time for testing now though.
A wide mid prime? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by it. The 14 2.8 is wide and light, then you have the newest F2 primes that gain sharpness but lose character at least for the 35mm. The 27 2.8 is as light as it gets and sharp while at it. The newly announced 16 2.8 seems interesting.
-
Ok, I get it now.
For wides looks like you are covered, same for mid where I too prefer the 1.4 vs the 2 version, even if it focuses slower.
Short telephoto is a little tricky. The 90 requires dedication and I don’t use it as much as I should because of the weight and it’s a pity as I think it’s their best lens. The 55-200 is a little is on the heavier side too and unless I know for sure I’ll use it it stays home too.
If you want to replace the 56 there are few options right now. You could use the 60 2.4; it is slow to focus and you lose some aperture but it is sharp and very light. Another option would be the 18-55, and you lose even more aperture.
The best option is what you are using now, the new 50 F2 where you gain WR but it’s a little short at 75mm equiv; this is the only one that I dont have but I’ve read good things about it. There is a macro out there at 80 but heavy as well.
You could also adapt one of your Nikons, you’ll have to settle with manual focus only.
-
PS. Keep in mind that you think the 90 is too heavy, the 55-200 is even heavier, although definitely more versatile
-
Personally I think you began your poll before the most significant introduction. (https://petapixel.com/2018/09/25/leica-panasonic-sigma-announce-l-mount-alliance-in-mirrorless-wars/)
-
Personally I think you began your poll before the most significant introduction. (https://petapixel.com/2018/09/25/leica-panasonic-sigma-announce-l-mount-alliance-in-mirrorless-wars/)
Agreed.
-
Armand, thank you for your observations. Much appreciated.
My current Fujis plus the 3 f2s are more than what I am capable of.
Hence these new cameras are really superfluous to my needs.
Kind regards.
-
I had an "I'm waiting for Panasonic" option in there, specifically to cover that - I didn't know that it was going to include Leica and Sigma...
-
I had an "I'm waiting for Panasonic" option in there, specifically to cover that - I didn't know that it was going to include Leica and Sigma..
I thought the Panasonic announcements were anti-climatic. And the prototype cameras were larger than their Canon and Nikon counterparts, which is certainly a step in the wrong direction. I guess they needed something to better balance those big Leica and Sigma lenses.
-
The Leica SL lenses are huge, and I've never heard any suggestion that their image quality is spectacular enough to be worth the lofty price tags. Sigma Art lenses are also famously large, although they are famous for their image quality at relatively affordable prices. For my use, a big-body system with all (or mostly) big lenses is useless, no matter the image quality.
Unless they have some really special secret sauce, they aren't going to outdo the Fuji GFX 100 for still image quality, and it looks like their body is going to be close in size to the big Fuji, with many lenses at least as large (depending on focal length). From a purely still image perspective, they seem to have produced something that can be described as:
A Z7 (or A7rIII if you prefer) that's twice the size
OR
A D850 with oversized lenses and compromised AF
OR
A GFX 100, but hold the medium format...
Of course, there are two wild cards here... The big one is video. Panasonic has long had class-leading video quality, and I can easily see one or both of these two bodies (we'll see which one has better video features when the full specs come out) ending up in the rarefied realm of video quality occupied by Red and Arri (although without Red's beyond 4k features). Really top-end video would probably be limited to the XQD slot, which can handle gigabit per second data rates (both in terms of write speed and available card sizes - a 256 GB card records half an hour at a gigabit per second). This would allow some previously unseen (outside of high-end cinema cameras) combinations of image size and frame rate (4Kp120 and 1080p480 should be possible - maybe some ultra slo-mo rates like 720p960 as well???). 8Kp30 is feasible, too - but I would imagine that "it's an 8K video camera" would have been in the specs if true. We'll see if the final video specs include very high combinations of frame rate and resolution (and/or ultra-high quality compression at more plebian rates)?
The other wild card is a high-resolution Foveon body. At certain ISO settings, and with certain subject matter, a ~45 MP FF Foveon sensor (that Sigma claims at ~70 MP) could be gorgeous. Like all Foveons, it will lack versatility - expect a maximum really usable ISO between 400 and 1600. It may (or may not) also lack dynamic range - but its color and detail rendering could go well beyond any other FF sensor, surpassing even the 50 MP medium format sensor, and approaching what the GFX 100 sensor can do. A very special purpose camera, but possibly a very special one in some applications...
-
I'm waiting for the GFX100.
It seems like it's the ultimate camera, at least for me. 100MP, IBIS, 100% PDAF, C1, Highly adaptable, Pixel Shift.
It doesn't seem like it could get any better and I am ready to place my order.
-
Hi,
My take is that EVF cameras will take over from DSLRs. Obviously Canon and Nikon must enter the EVF market sooner or later and they just did that.
It seems that they did not go all the way. The Z7 is not a mirrorless D850 and the EOS R is not at the feature level of the Canon 5DIV.
The Canon EOS R is interesting for me, as I am shooting mostly with Canon mount lenses on Sony A7rII. So the EOS R would do good service for things that the Canon/Sony combo doesn't shine at. But I will probably hold to my wallet until next generation.
The Panasonic/Leica/Sigma alliance is obviously a good thing.
Fuji offering affordable MF is very interesting. But I would say that they have done that with the GFX for two years. I am not sure that the lower price of the GFX 50R matters a lot, you are buying into a system, add a couple of lenses and you still spend over 10k$US anyway.
It seems that the GFX has really excellent lenses. Jim Kasson is a retired scientist/engineer who has done a lot of testing on the Fuji GFX and found that the lenses are Otus class. I would think that the 100MP sensor is really needed to make those lenses best justice.
But I am not a GFX buyer, as I don't need that image quality. But, I think that the GFX is the most rational choice if MFD quality is needed.
Best regards
Erik
-
I'm waiting for the GFX100.
It seems like it's the ultimate camera, at least for me. 100MP, IBIS, 100% PDAF, C1, Highly adaptable, Pixel Shift.
It doesn't seem like it could get any better and I am ready to place my order.
Price?
What do you do with you images that requires 100mp?
-
Hi,
It is said to be around 10k$US.
The way it is the next generation Sony sensor is 100MP. MFD is a small market and there is no new 50 MP sensor on Sony's roadmap.
Also, 100 MP will yield less aliasing and moiré than 50 MP.
If you print large, like 30"x40" it is probable that 100 MP will show advantage over 50 MP.
It is also quite possible that we will see 60-70 MP in 24x36 within say two years. You probably want an MFD camera that resolves higher than 24x36 mirrorless.
Best regards
Erik
Price?
What do you do with you images that requires 100mp?
-
What do you do with you images that requires 100mp?
You use 'em as an excuse to brag, of course. ;D
Seriously, I think Erik has it right: you make ginormous prints. Otherwise there's no practical point.
-Dave-
-
The more I read about the Z7, the more I'm convinced that my decision to get on the list was right - it's the best match for what I'm doing - landscape, often involving very long hikes (not necessarily the best choice for everyone - I can see merit in all the systems, depending on what you're doing). I don't have one yet - I'd be posting photos if I did - hopefully soon, I can't wait to use that big ol' sensor for fall color!...
Here's Why:
1.) Big pixel count (while keeping pixel size reasonable) and big dynamic range. This is as much overall sensor IQ as one can cram into a hikeable package. I'm not sure that even 3 year old 50 MP cropped medium format sensor in the Hasselblad and the GFX 50 line is a meaningful upgrade (the 100 MP sensor coming out in the GFX 100 almost certainly will be, but that's at least twice the system weight, not to mention three times the cost.
2.) Weather sealing/durability. I haven't seen anyone refute Nikon's claims that it's a D850 from a durability and sealing standpoint, and I've seen a lot of support for those claims. That's at least in the same range as the top Fujis (X-H1 and medium format), and well beyond any Sony (even the A9 has unsealed points) or the EOS R (which Canon explicitly refers to as in the 6D Mark II class, which translates into Nikonese as "kind of like the D610 or the D7500" - D850 in Canonish is "somewhere between a 5D mk IV and a 1Dx mkII"). The only mirrorless camera that might be more resistant to the dust, mist, etc. of long-hike landscape photography is an E-M1 mk II (add DSLRs and you can add a couple of top Pentaxes, plus the D5 and the 1 Dx mk II (and their predecessors). The E-M1 mk II would mean going from the very top of the range in image quality I can realistically carry to the bottom of that range. A pro sports DSLR is outside of the realistic weight range for me to hike with and into the GFX 100S weight range (if I were to carry anything that heavy, it wouldn't be a 9 FPS 20ish MP DSLR, it would be a 100 MP camera!).
3.) Lens roadmap. Apart from the NOCT, the initial Nikon lenses make sense for what I want to do - very high quality for modest size and weight (sacrificing aperture). The 14-30 is due next year, and a 14-30/24-70 kit is about as good as it gets for long hikes up to hundreds of miles (the only other thing I might want is a macro lens - long lenses are useful, but not carryable - and, unfortunately, that's physics). The very solid FTZ adapter invites the possibility of anything from a very long lens (theoretically up to a 1200-1700mm if I had the money to buy it and the artillery mount to handle it) to a tilt/shift lens for use closer to the car.
4.)Ergonomics. It really does handle like a nice DSLR - different from a Fuji, but also nice.
Why not (in rough order of how close it came to the (nearly) final decision to add Nikon Z to my Fuji system):
1.) Stick with Fuji APS-C only? I'm certainly planning on keeping my Fuji system - I have lenses Nikon doesn't yet make for the Z, and I can also assemble an even lighter one-lens kit for when mobility is absolutely paramount (X-T2 plus little 18-55)... 46 MP with two extra stops of DR at certain ISOs (that I like to shoot at) is pretty irresistible, though.
2.) Add Fuji MF, since I already know and like Fuji? This got very serious consideration, and was, in fact, the option that came closest... What I looked at the hardest was the GFX 50R, which is the most hikeable form of Fuji MF. The lenses are big, even if the GFX 50 R body isn't huge (the "not here yet" 40mm near-pancake might be the exception) . The lack of any kind of IS on most lenses is a serious drawback to me. Image quality is very close - I used the Imaging Resource comparometer test, because it's the only thing that gives the exact same shot on two cameras, and the differences are tiny (generally favoring the Fuji, but by so little that it could easily just be Fuji's superior JPEG engine or a minor difference in lens quality). I'm sure the GFX 100S will be in a different class, and it has stabilization, but that's also in a completely different weight and price class.
3.) Look at Sony? Weather sealing - see the imaging resource test, where the Sony does much less well than just about anything else... Ergonomics - I've shot a lot of Sonys, and they always feel (to me) like computers with lenses instead of cameras with digital hardware in them. Lenses - The Nikkors seem to be superior to anything Sony makes in a comparable size and weight range - the 24-70 G-Master may very well be as good or better than the little Nikkor zoom, but it's twice as heavy, and the 24-70 "Zeiss" doesn't seem close to the Nikkor. Sony certainly has a lot of appeal to someone looking for a wider native lens range (I'm really looking for two native zooms for the majority of my work (standard and wide)), or more bodies to choose from.
4.) Think about Canon? 30 MP doesn't seem worth the jump from 24 MP Fuji, especially when it might actually cost me dynamic range. The initial lenses don't appeal to me as much - I suspect this would be very different if I were a portrait photographer salivating over fast apertures and not minding a little weight. I haven't handled one myself (and it doesn't seem close enough that I feel like I need to, although I'll certainly take a look before handing over the $ for the Nikon if the shop where I'm on the Nikon list has one). No IBIS is a disadvantage, although the most hikeable lens does have lens IS (and knowing Canon's reputation for lens IS, it's likely to be very good). No roadmap for a native wide-angle, which is the second lens I'd want (although I like the little bit of extra reach on the 24-105). Many initial reviews don't love the ergonomics (somewhere in between Sony and Nikon/Fuji), especially the touch bar.
5.) Wait for Panasonic? Big bodies and lenses without the benefit of medium format. I can't see the sensor being any better than the Nikon/Sony sensor, because it's none of:
a.) medium format
b.) 16-bit
c.) significantly higher resolution.
The 46 MP Nikon sensor (and its close cousin the 42.4 MP Sony sensor) are pushing the limits of what's technically possible for a ~45MP, 24x36mm, 14-bit Bayer sensor pretty darned hard. They have useful data in the final bit of the ADC at base ISO (so any more DR would require a 15 or 16 bit readout), they're getting very close to the theoretical limit of their resolution at low ISOs, and their color depth is as good as Bayer's going to get. It may not be possible to improve on that sensor (at least not very much) within its basic parameters - and the Panny sensor doesn't break through any of those parameters. If it were 16-bit, it certainly could have more DR. If it were well above 50 MP, it could resolve better (it might take 60 MP to see it in a print). If it were medium format, it could have different bokeh. If it were a Foveon, it could have different color in a way that can't be adjusted with a camera profile. But it's none of those things - it's another ~45 MP 14-bit full-frame Bayer sensor, and it's constrained by the theoretical limits of such a sensor, which the Nikon and the Sony are very close to reaching.
What the Panasonic could very well have is significantly different (better) video - I'm almost expecting it, but I'm not willing to pay the weight for it... Someone who's more of a hybrid still-video shooter may well want the better video.
They're all appealing to different photographers, especially when Canon gets a body worthy of the 28-70 f2 and 50 f1.2 out there, but Nikon (plus my existing Fuji APS-C) is my choice for those reasons...
Dan
-
My conclusions exactly. I think the most important thing about the Z isn't any of the features, but that Nikon is actually breaking from the pack with their premium f4 zooms and f1.8 primes, whereas Sony, despite some forays down that road, clearly has their heart on large, fast GMs right now. Zeiss is doing their best to help keep things compact, but they aren't making any zooms.
It's pricey and MF only but, the Voigtlander 180/4 may be backpack-able. 645g with caps and FTZ attached. Not a lot of options for lightweight, high quality telephotos...it's nearly double the weight of my Olympus 75/1.8, but that's the price you pay for 35mm :/
-
The new 70-300 E lens is about 680g, without the FTZ though. I think it's the lightest telephoto zoom that still offers good quality.
-
The new 70-300 E lens is about 680g, without the FTZ though. I think it's the lightest telephoto zoom that still offers good quality.
Also, the 300mm PF prime is brilliant on the Z7. Well balanced, sharp, light and extremely hand-holdable.
-
Both the 70-300 and the 300 PF seem like good lenses for Nikon to (eventually) put out Z-mount versions of (or closely related lenses). Depending on how they do it, they could be either lighter than the F-mount versions, perhaps with better image quality (maybe marginally, since long lenses don't benefit nearly as much as wides from the better mount dimensions), or as heavy as the F-mount version plus the FTZ (in which case, why bother).
If they redesign the lenses slightly to take advantage of the Z-mount, I would expect them to be a little bit smaller and lighter than their F-mount twins (assuming very similar specs). The other approach is what Sigma did when they produced E-mount versions of the ART lenses - they just put what amounts to a permanent mount adapter on the back of existing designs. The E-mount lenses are about 24 mm longer than the Canon EF version of the same lens (not coincidentally, EF is an all-electronic mount like the E-mount with a flange distance 24mm longer).
-
Both the 70-300 and the 300 PF seem like good lenses for Nikon to (eventually) put out Z-mount versions of (or closely related lenses). Depending on how they do it, they could be ... as heavy as the F-mount version plus the FTZ (in which case, why bother).
With that combination of long focal lengths (so no need to have rear elements close to the sensor) and highish minimum f-stops, I doubt there is room for improvement over current designs, so probably that second options, and they would end up like ...
... what Sigma did when they produced E-mount versions of the ART lenses - they just put what amounts to a permanent mount adapter on the back of existing designs.
My guess is that Z-mount versions of such lenses will wait until there is a significant desire in the market to have a "pure Z" kit, to avoid fiddling with adaptors.
-
I had a bunch of the current generation of FF (and larger) mirrorless in front of me in a store today.
Nikon Z7 with the 24-70
Sony A7rIII with (unfortunately) the 28-70 f3.5-5.6
Canon EOS R with the 24-105
Fuji GFX-50S with the 32-64
No opportunity to get real images (what can you tell in camera shop lighting???) - but a good look at the handling. I was there to pick up my Z7 preorder (unfortunately, the bank's "big transaction security" means I'll have to pick it up tomorrow - it was after business hours when they wanted to confirm). Since I had the preorder in, I clearly already favored the Z7, but it was really interesting to see with its competitors.
I'd handled quite a number of Sonys before, and shot with several extensively, although never one of the III series in any depth (I'd played with an A7rIII at PhotoPlus, but that's a mob scene).
I'd handled a Z7 at a launch event and placed a preorder based on that experience, early reviews and the reputation of the sensor (and its close relative, the D850 sensor).
I'd never seen an EOS R before (very few people have).
I'd seen a GFX at PhotoPlus and in a couple of shops, but never spent any time handling one.
I confirmed my personal bias that I like the Z7 the best of the lot for what I do - landscapes, often very far from the trailhead (I admit that I've always liked Nikon and Fuji, and never warmed to Sony handling). It's a relatively compact camera (a tiny bit bigger than the A7rIII, largely because of the larger grip and because the Sony variable-aperture lens is TINY - I'd never seen one of those, not that you'd use it on a 40+ MP body). I was surprised by how much larger the EOS R is than the Sony and Nikon. The GFX is huge - it's much closer in size to a D850 than to any of the others, and the 32-64 zoom is the size of a typical 24-70 f2.8, despite the shorter range and slower aperture. The 50R may be significantly smaller, but the lenses are the same as the 50S, and that means big...
The Nikon controls are very well placed - the two main dials and the focus point selector fall right to hand for me. No dedicated EV comp dial is an omission, although the button is easy to reach (and the lens ring can be set to EV comp). The Sony dials are not as easy to reach, although the EV comp dial is a very welcome addition. The Canon lacks a focus point selector altogether (I don't find the touchscreen useful with the camera to my eye). The Fuji controls are very nice once you get used to the size of the beast (I was expecting it to feel like an X-H1, which it resembles, but it's so much bigger that it really doesn't).
The Nikon and Fuji grips are the most comfortable for my (big) hands, followed by the Canon. The Sony just didn't feel good in hand (this is entirely personal preference, of course - someone's going to say "I love the Sony grip and the Nikon bulges in all the wrong places" - all that means is that we have differently shaped hands...).
I looked carefully at the visible seals (battery and memory compartments plus the lens mount), and Nikon wasn't kidding when they said "it's sealed like a D850". Big, thick gaskets and very positive locks on the doors. I didn't have a D5 in front of me, but I'd be surprised if there's much difference even there. The Fuji also looks robustly sealed, while the Sony and Canon are less so. I couldn't even see a gasket on their battery doors at all (there may have been a thin one in a groove).
The Fuji lens has absolutely beautiful zoom and focus controls! The little Sony consumer zoom feels very cheap (but that's not the lens most people would actually use on that body - I've never handled a G-Master, but I'm sure it would not disappoint). The Canon 24-105 is big, much more so than I would expect from the modest additional reach, but it's a nice, smooth lens - the lens felt much better built than the (slightly cheap) body. The Nikon lens is slightly stiff on the zoom control - the movement from "lock" to 24mm is (deliberately) very stiff, then it becomes smoother within the zoom range. All the lenses except the Sony felt very well built (yet again, the Sony suffered from the wrong lens).
All four viewfinders are quite good - nothing like the low-resolution, laggy finders on any mirrorless from a few years ago. Nikon boasts of the optics in their finder, and with good reason - best EVF I've ever used, although I've never used the vaunted Leica SL...
All four focused quickly and accurately, even in the low light. No opportunity to track a moving subject. The Nikon's optional pinpoint AF area is wonderfully small, and it does hit it.
All in all, the Nikon is what I would choose (and have chosen) for what I do. The Sony doesn't "feel right" to me, but only the weather sealing is anything but a matter of personal preference - someone else may love its controls and handling, and it certainly makes great images, as a year worth of people using it in the field show. The Canon doesn't feel like the camera and the lenses are meant to go together - the body has a much more "consumer" feel than anything else that was in front of me, while even the 24-105 (the least exotic of its lenses) felt like it was meant for a bigger and more professional body. Did they rush the body out the door, while the lenses had been development for some body we haven't seen yet? The Fuji is huge, and feels like it's more suited for use closer to the car than a multi-hundred mile hike.
-
I wonder if the stats of this survey are any representative.
It doesn’t look like Canon has managed to generate too much excitement with their initial R body.
Wouldn’t it be fun if mirrorless meant that Sony moves to #1, Nikon stayed #2 and Canon slipped to #3? Wouldn’t that be a fair representation of the value brought by these 3 companies the past 5–10 years?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am currently a Fuji user considering the move to full frame. The Nikon is the only camera that peaks my interest, but it will be two to three years before there is a decent selection of native lenses, so there is really not much to get excited about. If I had to choose today, I'd probably go for the Fuji GFX50R.
-
With a few opportunities to shoot my Z7, plus a look at all of the competitors at PhotoPlus (including the GFX 50R in hand - I'd previously seen a GFX 50S, but not a 50R, and both the Panasonic S1r and the GFX 100S under glass)... I certainly picked the right camera for my use - of course, others' use cases will differ.
The Z7 handles very nicely - it's nothing like my Fujis, but it is a lot like any other modern Nikon. Still getting used to the Nikon handling a bit, but I've always felt that Fuji and Nikon have the two best control systems...
The build quality feels superb - I completely believe Roger Cicala's teardown (I've never seen him so impressed with any camera's build). The one issue is that it's possible to accidentally open the XQD door while getting the camera out of the bag. I'll probably tape the door a bit in tough conditions (the seal's excellent - I just don't want to accidentally pop it open).
The only other issue I've had is that the shots remaining counter (on the card) isn't completely accurate - it usually indicates fewer shots than it really has (this in NEF plus large/fine JPEG). Many cameras do this, although Nikons tend to be off by more than some others...
Looking at the competitors:
The looks I had at the EOS R I had at PhotoPlus confirmed what I saw at my local camera shop - the body doesn't match the quality of the lenses, and they don't really look like they go together (could there be another body that they didn't finish in time for this release)? The body is a nice size, but feels much less solid than the Nikon. The lenses are big and heavy (I haven't seen the little 35mm macro), but beautifully built.
The Panasonic looks like it is close to the size of a D850. There was nothing else in the case to compare it to (it was in a separate case quite a ways from the nearest GH5 or G9), so that is a guess, but it is BIG. The prototype looks relatively finished and production-quality, but I don't think anybody's seen one turned on.
I can't see what still specification it could possibly have that would make the size and weight "worth it" - why would you want a camera the size of a D850 that offered no advantage over a D850 (or a 5DIV if you prefer Canon), without the huge advantage of one of the established systems (and it won't have really solid adapters for anything other than a 12 MP crop using Micro 43 lenses) . We already know that it is about the same resolution as a D850 or a Z7, and it can't have much more dynamic range unless it's got 16-bit output (which has never been seen on anything except a few medium format SLRs). It does have some sort of sensor shift that supposedly generates a 168 MP image, which may be useful for certain situations, but all current versions of this technology require absolutely no motion in either camera or subject, limiting use outside of the studio.
I'm still optimistic that Panasonic will do something class-leading in terms of video. There are unconfirmed rumors of raw video floating around, but Panasonic employees in the booth would not talk about any specification other than those that have already been released - they'll confirm 4K, but nothing more. There doesn't seem to be anything special about the initial lenses from any specification I've seen. Of course, it's all been "look but don't touch", and they've been VERY coy about specifications (can't even get a weight out of them), but I would think they'd be talking about anything special, trying to get people to wait for it..
The GFX 50R is much larger than it looks in many pictures. I had imagined a somewhat larger X-E3, and it DOES look like an X-E3, but it's probably twice the size. It's about the size of a D850 according to camerasize, but it actually feels bulkier than that... The 50MP sensor is well known for its image quality (and the prints Fuji had in the booth were very impressive) - but it's really big if that matters to you. It handles very well, but it handles like a big camera - I've only handled a Mamiya 6 or 7 a couple of times, and they were years ago, but it's much more like that than any APS-C Fuji, or even any Leica. I've never used the Fuji "Texas Leicas" that used 120 film, but I suspect they're similar. The only real differences in bulk between the 50R and the 50S are the viewfinder and the "hump" on the back of the 50S. The 50R may actually be larger without the protrusions.
Here's a camerasize comparison between the GFX 50R with the 32-64, the D850 with the 24-70 f2.8, the EOS R with the 24-105 f4, the A7rIII with the 24-105 f4 and the Z7 with the 24-70 f4. Camerasize didn't have the Panasonic yet. The lenses aren't quite fair (the D850 has a faster lens, and the Z7 lacks long-end range compared to the Sony and Canon, while the Fuji has less overall range), but there aren't comparable lenses for all the bodies. Each one is the zoom I'd use to carry around, though (the lighter options for D850 and A7rIII sacrifice too much quality).
http://j.mp/2OixXch
Seeing a GFX 100 under glass, it is much larger than either of the GFX 50 models. It's at least the size of a D5 or a 1Dx II, maybe larger. The prototype is clearly a long way from production - the integrated vertical grip doesn't look like it matches the rest of the camera at all. It almost looks like the grip is a 3D printed addition. Maybe it's an odd design decision, and the grip really will have a different finish, but unless that's the case, it looks six months or more from production.
-
The build quality feels superb - I completely believe Roger Cicala's teardown (I've never seen him so impressed with any camera's build). The one issue is that it's possible to accidentally open the XQD door while getting the camera out of the bag. I'll probably tape the door a bit in tough conditions (the seal's excellent - I just don't want to accidentally pop it open).
The door opening is getting annoying, it's starting to become more often than it should.
-
The door opening is getting annoying, it's starting to become more often than it should.
How does that happen. It’s never happened with mine (so far).
-
How does that happen. It’s never happened with mine (so far).
It depends on the bag, if it's a tighter fit when pulling it out the door gets caught and opens.
-
A new piece of (completely inscrutable) mirrorless news. Olympus is preparing to launch a new sports-centered M43 camera called the E-M1X - it's bigger than a D850, and almost the size of an EOS-1DX mk II, with a built-in vertical grip...and a M43 sensor! It'll be priced well above the existing E-M1 mk II (hopefully a lot cheaper than the D5 and the EOS-1DX mk II). How do they expect to get away with sensor quality that lags behind a bunch of ~$500-$600 cameras (D3500, A5100, A6000, Fuji X-A5, etc... - anything cheap with a recent Sony 24 MP APS-C sensor) in what will probably be a $3000 camera? I'm sure it'll be fast and rugged, and have great IBIS - the E-M1 mk II is all of that, yet it suffers from a small, resolution and DR challenged sensor. Unless they have a unique (organic?) sensor, they're giving up two stops of sensor quality to literally every other camera anywhere NEAR the same price, size or weight. It'll take a lot of features to make that up.
Almost equally headscratchingly, it seems to use a 7.4 volt battery - no further specs. Most cameras use a 7.2-7.4 volt battery, so that is not in and of itself unusual. The only two cameras I know of with a significantly higher-voltage battery (around 11 volts, so 3 cells rather than 2) are the two sports titans (the D5 and EOS-1DX mk II). A few other Nikons can run at the higher voltage with vertical grips attached and the D5 battery in the grip. The big, high-voltage battery is a big part of why those cameras are so fast in every measure from AF to frame rate to viewfinder blackout (and why their grips aren't removable). Why build a camera with a built-in grip withouttaking advantage by filling it full of battery?
If this were Panasonic, my initial response would be "that's not a camera, it's a camcorder"... There might even be a full-fledged SSD buried in the grip, and 4KP120, 4K raw video and ProRes (or something like that) would explain the size - it would need a ton of space to cool the sensor! I'd wonder why it was built in a DSLR-style body instead of a smaller version of a Sony FS5 type body? Olympus has previously shown little inclination to build camcorders, but it's the best explanation I can think of...
-
The rumored Oly camera is claimed to be capable of high-res mode (~80mp) handheld capture. If they can legitimately pull that off they'll have something. Video features are also claimed to be extensive.
Who knows… I'll pay attention once/if it's real.
-Dave-
-
I couldn't justify the E-M1ii price several years ago and meanwhile the target moved further. This might suffer from the same problem.
-
resolution ... challenged sensor.
D500, 1DxII, D5 are the same 20mp level sensor resolution wise... so DR - yes, but resolution is OK for the target audience.
-
The *target audience being folks who print stuff they can display in their homes and/or offices rather than hallucinating about covering museum walls with ginormo Meisterwerke.
(Only partly tongue-in-cheek.)
-Dave-
*With current m43 cameras…got no comment on something that currently exists only as rumor.
-
While printing big is one issue with the M43 sensors, it's not the only one... They're also DR-challenged to the point that (given exactly the wrong image), it can be visible in a web-sized image. The noise difference can be visible in a relatively small print or online at really high ISOs, and clear in an 8x12 by ISO 1600 or 3200. Maybe Olympus has a new sensor that makes the difference only resolution, and if so, it's much less of an issue - the resolution doesn't crop up as a problem until at least 13x19 (and that requires a very high-detail subject).
I just don't see where the strength that overcomes the weaknesses is. The E-M1 mk II has a niche (not as large as Olympus would like) in that it is by far the fastest camera anywhere near its size or price. It focuses faster, has a higher frame rate and tracks better than anything except the sports titans that cost and weigh more than twice as much (and it's competitive with them).
When it was introduced, it was also the most rugged camera anywhere near its size or price, and its IBIS was the best on the planet. One reason that Olympus is in trouble right now is that, while there's nothing more rugged or with better IBIS, the competition is a lot closer in those areas without the sensor challenges. Sony, Fuji and Nikon all have excellent IBIS now, and both Sony and Nikon couple it with sensors that have more than twice the resolution and more than two stops of extra dynamic range (Nikon gets close to three stops because of a native ISO 64). Fuji and Nikon, along with Pentax's KP (a DSLR the size and weight of a good-sized mirrorless body) have bodies that closely approach the Olympus in build quality and weather sealing. None of them have the E-M1 mk II's speed, but its niche has become "speed in an extremely portable package".
Lose that portability and you run directly into the sports titans, with 20 years of AF lenses hanging around newsrooms around the world and pro support at every major event. If you're shooting Canon or Nikon for Sports Illustrated at a major league baseball game and you take a foul ball (or, occasionally, a ballplayer) to the lens (the expensive sound of flourite glass breaking is heard at Fenway Park alone at least once a year), someone else in the camera well will get you a lens by the next pitch, you'll have SI's spare lens (which may be a generation older) for tomorrow's game, and CPS or NPS will have your lens fixed or replaced by next week (if it's the playoffs, CPS or NPS will have a lens for you during the next inning break). Can Olympus match that?
-
I’d much rather an EM5 Mk 3 than what this rumor describes, but I dispute a bit the claims of a DR advantage for low-light fast action photography when elevated exposure index (“ISO speed”) is needed. In short, it is misleading to count stops of highlight headroom when every photosite is far below full; what counts then is photon counts, shot noise and read noise levels. If a larger format is at ISO 400 or above, photosites all under 1/4 full, and the smaller format can use a shorter, brighter lens of similar front element size and effective aperture diameter, so that the ISO speed can be lower, there is little difference in noise levels and “practical DR”, measured from the brightest pixels down.
A larger format does better on practical DR and noise levels when a larger lens and larger aperture size (not ratio) can be used—that is, when that bigger lens is available, its greater weight and cost is acceptable, and the shallower DOF is also acceptable (or even desired).
Otherwise, longer exposure times are the key to increased practical DR and improved SNR—far more traditional territory of the larger format advantage than fast action photography!
-
I think the m43 sensor disadvantages get overstated a bit--there are so many situations where 20MP m43 is much, much more than sufficient, and/or realizing the full potential of larger sensors is impossible. Particularly when depth of field is desirable, or IBIS can claw back the ground. Street shooting at night, for example, I'd take my EM-1.2 over my Z7.
But I'm still scratching my head about a fully gripped EM-1 variant. Not just the lack of a strong support network as Dan mentioned...but the lenses. D5 type cameras are usually paired with the big iron, right? 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 type lenses. Huge, expensive, fast. Olympus doesn't really have those right now. The 300/4 is excellent but it's more of a packable wildlife lens, a competitor to Nikon's 500/5.6, not their 400/2.8. The older 4/3 SHG 150/2 and 300/2.8 are optically superb, but their autofocus systems are dated (at least the 150 is, I haven't shot the 300), and they aren't even officially supported anymore. Panasonic has a 200/2.8, which is more like it, but I suspect Oly isn't going to be showing marketing with that mounted :) There are rumors circling of a 200-400/4 type lens, which would help, but it still seems pretty thin for such a niche camera--even the D5 isn't exactly a high volume product.
Maybe the world is big enough to support a niche (smaller sensor, higher framerate) within a niche (large, fully gripped, super-premium cameras) within a niche (standalone cameras in general)...but....wow.
-
...
But I'm still scratching my head about a fully gripped EM-1 variant. Not just the lack of a strong support network as Dan mentioned...but the lenses. D5 type cameras are usually paired with the big iron, right? 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 type lenses.
Me too, though I can just maybe see a niche. Skeptically, when someone has enough use for f/2.8 in a long lens to buy and carry such a thing, it has a clear speed advantage over anything likely in Four Thirds format, where I do not expect f/1.4 long lenses. Even f/4 is pushing it, though f/2 counterparts are quite optically feasible (like 200/2 to compete with a 400/4, or 300/2 to compete with a 600/4). On the other hand, anything where 35mm format can now do the job at f/5.6 or higher (which is quite often thanks to the far high usable ISO speeds these days) an equivalent half-length f/2.8 is quite viable.
So my question is how big is the niche is for somewhat less massive and fast lenses, now that Four Thirds sensors can use far higher ISO speeds than 35mm film — and with more cropping latitude — so that the shutter speeds that once needed f/2.8 or f/4 super-telephotos with 35mm film is easily exceeded in Four Thirds with f/5.6 lenses of half the focal length; also meaning that zooms can do jobs that once required several primes. So maybe a big chunk of what used to require pushing the limits of the biggest, fastest long lenses can now be easily surpassed by a smaller, lighter kit in Micro Four Thirds ...
... or in APS-C format. After all, cameras like the Nikon D500 have a following for fast telephoto photography, for the sake of needing somewhat less massive lenses than in 35mm format. If the D500's format downsizing compared to its big brother the D5 makes sense for some use cases, just maybe the rumored E-M1X can too.
P. S. The E-M1X rumor trail:
https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/the-new-olympus-e-m1x-omd-camera-will-be-alunched-in-january-and-have-a-built-in-grip-to-compete-in-the-sports-realm/
https://www.43rumors.com/ft5-the-new-olympus-e-m1x-is-a-canon-1dx-level-camera/
https://www.43rumors.com/ft5-confirmed-olympus-registered-a-new-omd-model-with-built-in-grip/
https://www.43rumors.com/ft5-the-new-e-m1x-can-shoot-handheld-high-resolution-images/
-
I just don't see where the strength that overcomes the weaknesses is.
See attached pic of my usual travel bag, with me on my current trip, containing a Panasonic GX8 and five lenses: 12–35/2.8; 35–100/2.8, 100–300/4.0–5.6; 20/1.7 & 42.5/1.7. Now imagine the bulk and weight of a bag containing the "equivalent" lenses coverage-wise in deity-approved full frame.
Also, in my experience your comments about dynamic range and noise as they pertain to m43 cameras are all but irrelevant in most real-world use. Measurable? Yes. Meaningful? Mostly no, particularly when size & weight are any kind of factor.
-Dave-
-
See attached pic of my usual travel bag...
m43 is unmatched in portability. But would you be interested in adding an expensive, chunky, fully gripped EM-1x as the body to use with your kit? That's the part I'm not quite getting. Big form factor cameras strike me as highly specialized, and not very well matched to the rest of the system.
-
m43 is unmatched in portability. But would you be interested in adding an expensive, chunky, fully gripped EM-1x as the body to use with your kit?
Not with most MFT lenses, but if you start using it with fast "sport/wildlife" lenses, extra body weight could cease to be much of a disadvantage, especially if usage would need a battery pack/vertical grip added anyway if it were not built-in. What if for example Olympus plans to match some of its extreme Four Thirds SLR lens designs, like
300mm f//2.8 3,290 g
90-250mm f/2.8 3,270 g
150mm f/2 1,610 g
35-100mm f/2 1,650 g
or a bit more modestly, my favorite
50-200/2.8-3.5 995 g
So far though the MFT heavyweights are a more reasonable
300mm f/4 1270 g from Olympus
and
200mm f/2.8 1245 g from Panasonic
These are already significantly heavier than the rumored E-M1X body is likely to be.
-
m43 is unmatched in portability. But would you be interested in adding an expensive, chunky, fully gripped EM-1x as the body to use with your kit? That's the part I'm not quite getting. Big form factor cameras strike me as highly specialized, and not very well matched to the rest of the system.
No, don't have any interest in the rumored camera, assuming it is what it appears to be. I am curious about the possible handheld-friendly high-res ~80mp mode…but not interested per se.
-Dave-
-
There are really four distinct "types" of image quality in the interchangeable lens camera market today... Cameras within each category have broadly similar maximum IQ when you account for resolution, dynamic range, noise and all other factors that go into making a good print, assuming a similar lens. Some may have an unusual strength or weakness in some area... The most extreme versions of a sensor with an unusual strength are the D5 and EOS-1Dx mkII, with modest IQ at base ISO, but very high maximum ISO. At least as I see it, from having used and printed from all of these types, each type should be differentiable from the types above and below it in a good print of an appropriate size (don't expect to tell III from IV in an 8x12" print of a low-dynamic range scene,for example). There are plenty of cameras below Type I in use - a dear friend has an old Nikon D70 she uses mainly as a viewfinder for her 4x5" view camera. You can't buy one with interchangeable lenses today unless there's a Nikon 1 or a Pentax Q sitting on a shelf somewhere. Some medium format cameras (100 and 150 MP CMOS, 80 MP CCD under ideal conditions) probably come in well above Type IV, but I've never used one.
Type I (smaller, older, and low-resolution sensors):
The very common (no longer sold, as far as I know, but still out there in huge numbers) Sony 16 MP "D7000" sensor found in many Nikons, Sonys, Fujis and Pentaxes from a few years ago is the classic Type I sensor. Most Canon APS-C sensors fall in this category, as they give up dynamic range and noise handling to the D7000 sensor that compensates for their slightly higher resolution. The newest improved Canon APS-C sensors may well be Type II. Any Micro 4/3 sensor I've seen is clearly Type I, including the newest 20 MP sensor. The 20 MP Micro 43 sensor slightly underperforms the D7000 sensor in my limited experience with it. The very best 1" sensors may scrape the bottom of Type I. There are some oddities in here like the resolution-starved, but otherwise excellent 12 MP sensor in the D3 and D700 with its much lower resolution, but much better DR, than most others in this category. At low ISOs, Type I will comfortably print 13x19, and pushes up to 16x24" without too much work, although you can go bigger with lower-detail subjects. Most of them have a maximum "decent" ISO around 1600 (makes a good 8x12" print), no matter what the menu says. The odd D3/D700 sensor which will go quite a bit higher is the biggest exception to the ISO rule.
Type II (good 24 MP sensors)
The classic Type II sensor is the ubiquitous Sony 24 MP APS-C sensor. It's found in so many cheap cameras that one of the major issues with it is that it is often paired with lenses that don't do it justice (any non-Fuji 18-55, for example). With the good glass it usually finds in its Fuji guise, or with a well-chosen lens on a Sony, Nikon or Pentax, it'll push right on up to 24x36" on many subjects, and 16x24" is its sweet spot at low ISO. It has a lot more dynamic range than any Type I sensor except for the D3/D700 sensor. Also in Type II are most ~16-24 MP FF sensors - the difference between the latest 24 MP APS-C sensor behind a Fujinon 16-55 f2.8 and 24 MP FF is not easy to see. Maximum "decent" ISO for an 8x12" print varies between 1600-3200 for the older versions of the Sony APS-C sensor and some of the Canons up to some unimaginable number for the odd sensors in the D5 and 1Dx mkII. At ISO 200, I'd prefer the IQ of an X-T2 to either of those, but I don't want to THINK of shooting an X-T2 at a six-dight ISO, and a D5 can (sort of) do that. The two "sports titan" sensors are almost a subtype of their own, with their relatively modest base ISO IQ but absurd maximum ISOs.
Type III (high-resolution FF, below the latest BSI sensors).
The most common Type III sensor is the 36 MP Sony FF sensor that showed up in the original A7r, the D800/D800e/D810, and the two versions of the Pentax K1. I don't know the Canon 30 MP sensor found in the 5D mk IV and EOS-R well, but it might be in the bottom of this category or at the top of Type II. The oddity here is the 50 MP sensor in the Canon 5Ds and 5Ds R, which gives up dynamic range and noise performance to anything else in this category, but has a ton of resolution. The Sony sensor has maybe an extra stop of DR over a good APS-C Type II sensor, although not over some of the newer 24 MP FF designs. It also has a nice resolution bump that makes 24x36" prints easier to hit at reasonable ISOs (below 400 or 800?). It'll make a nice 8x12" print at ISO 6400...
Type IV (the best we have right now - other than $40,000 Phase backs)
This category is defined by a pair of near-twin Sony BSI full-frame sensors, Sony's own 42.4 MP version and the one they make for Nikon with a bit of a resolution bump to 45.7 MP and a base ISO of 64. Other occupants include the common (by medium-format standards) 50 MP 33x44 mm sensor and a few CCD-based medium-format oddities with extraordinary base ISO performance but maximum usable ISOs around 400 . There's an extra stop of low-ISO dynamic range here over Type III - much of it due to low base ISO on the Nikon sensor and big pixels on the MF sensors. The resolution bump is less significant than the extra stop, but it's noticeable. The biggest difference I have noticed between my new Z7 and Type III cameras I have used is that noise just isn't there on the Z7 (and almost certainly its close relatives) at ISO 64. Zoom in to 100% and it's all image detail, no noise. Think of a 4x5" transparency on a light box - drop any reasonable loupe on it, and all you get is more and more detail... The 36 MP sensor was by no means noisy, but it wasn't utterly noiseless at any ISO. How big will this print? Well, what's the widest roll of paper you've got? I don't have a 44" printer, but I have a VERY strong suspicion these sensors will be just fine at those sizes at or near base ISO. I haven't run the ISO up to see, but the reputation of these sensors other than the CCDs in older Phase and Hasselblad backs is very strong. It's almost a shame to touch the ISO dial, though - I've shot the Z7 as high as 1600, and it's very, very good - but it isn't utterly noiseless the way it is near base ISO.
There may be a Type V
Some recent medium-format oddities like the Phase One 100 MP backs, especially the Trichromatic, the new 150 MP backs, and probably the as-yet unseen 100MP 33x44mm sensor (Fuji GFX 100) offer yet another level of image quality. Right now, the price of entry is around $40,000 - if the GFX 100 lives up to expectations, it'll drop the cost of this level of performance by 75%.
What makes the new Olympus odd is that it is almost certainly a Type I sensor and, unless they've done something unexpected, it's not even likely to be an especially good performer at high ISO within its class. Unless it's a new sensor that's significantly above the current performance/size curve, it will offer raw sensor performance significantly below what you can get for $500. Of course, its images will be better than 99% of what you see from $500 cameras, both because of lenses (it's rare to see a $1000 lens on a $500 body, although many of the lenses that would show the full potential of the Sony 24 MP sensor cost $1000) and because it is likely to be used by people who understand exposure and composition.
Assuming a $1000+ price bump over the E-M1 mk II, it's a ~$3000 camera. The big Canon and Nikon sports bodies have always been at least a $2000 bump over anything else in their lines, while the Sony A9 is a $1300 bump over the much higher resolution A7rIII and a $2500 bump over the A7III. The only other cameras at that price point or above offer either Type IV image quality or extreme high ISO performance (or are Leicas, which operate by their own rules). The most expensive camera that is neither full-frame or larger nor a Leica is the Fuji X-H1, which lists for $1900 but often carries a rebate. You can often find one around $1500-$1600 if you count the value of included accessories. The X-H1 probably offers the highest image quality of any non full-frame camera, unless its own stablemate (the X-T3) has pulled slightly ahead.
What could Olympus possibly do to offer value at nearly double the price of the X-H1 without using a larger sensor? They aren't going to break the laws of optical physics and come up with a sensor 1/4 the size of any other camera over $2000 that offers comparable performance to even the most basic FF sensor. If they have such a sensor, it won't be long until someone makes a bigger one and drops it in an APS-C or FF body. Can they ruggedize it enough over the already excellent E-M1 mkII to give it even a small niche? If so, it had better carry a depth rating of at least 50 feet and hopefully more (and it'll need new lenses - existing Micro 43 lenses aren't rated for diving)! Can they speed it up? The E-M1 mkII is already a 15 FPS camera - If it's 30 fps, why not simply call it a dedicated camcorder that has a good enough resolution/compression combination that you can extract stills from the video? A few sports photographers do this with REDs and other high-resolution video cameras. It seems very unlikely that it will have usable 6-digit ISOs when every other Micro 43 camera realistically tops out under 3200 - if it does, it's a sensor breakthrough...
Olympus engineers' lives are further complicated by the fact that the existing E-M1 mk II is already as close to the big-body sports titans as its sensor will allow. It actually has a higher frame rate than either Canon or Nikon, although it lags the 20 FPS of the Sony A9 slightly. Its rugged build will stand up to any abuse short of swimming or diving with it. Its AF system is right in the running for the best there is. Its base ISO image quality lags the rest, and its high-ISO performance lags the rest significantly, simply because it's exposing 1/4 as much silicon to the light. It's hard to improve what's already state of the art, especially when the size and price of the new design mean losing two of its most compelling features - being half the size of the non-Sony competition, and being 1/3 or 1/4 the price of any competitor.
Another of the E-M1 mk II's special features is its image stabilizer - and, again, it probably can't be significantly improved. With the specific lens that engages the full power of the stabilizer, the 12-100mm f4 PRO, Olympus engineers claim they've hit a limit imposed by the rotation of the Earth. They could build more lenses that get 6.5 stops of stabilization, and that would be worthwhile.
Lenses are a huge issue to compete in the pro sports arena...
The standards are:
70-200mm f2.8 - the m43 equivalent would be a 35-100 mm f1.4. This (or something close) may actually exist as a cinema lens, but it's bigger, heavier and more expensive than a 70-200 f2.8 for full-frame. If they can make it to sell for $2000-$2500, a 35-100 f1.4 may actually make sense...
300 mm f2.8 - the m43 equivalent would be a 150mm f1.4. Something close to this does exist as a cinema lens from a number of manufacturers. It's a 135mm with T-stops between 1.3(!!!) and 1.9(T-stop measures actual light transmission, while f-stops are theoretical - a f1.4 lens will typically be between T1.5 and T1.9) , but most versions of it are much more expensive than a 300mm f2.8. There is a Chinese lens that's only a little more expensive than Canon and Nikon 300 mm f2.8s.
400 mm f2.8 - NOBODY makes the equivalent 200mm f1.4, even as a $50,000 cinema lens - or, if they do, B&H doesn't know about it.
600mm f4 - Nikon actually made a 300mm f2.0 for still photography in the 1980s, in very small numbers (400-500 ever made). It was a "real enough" lens to show up in Nikon catalogs, and B&H even stocked it for a time. Canon seems to have made a few (tens or less) 300mm f1.8s for photo-finishes at horse races in the 1980s or 1990s - if so, they never made it into a Canon catalog or the Canon museum. No autofocus versions of the Nikkor ever existed, although the Canon was an autofocus lens! At least some examples of the Nikkor exist and occasionally show up for sale! Most survivors are now in cinema mounts.
180(200)-400mm f4 - the m43 equivalent is a 90-200mm f2, which doesn't presently exist.
All of the prime lenses are at least possible - the 150mm f1.4 is a shorter member of the 200mm f2/300mm f2.8/400mm f4 lens family with a front element diameter around 100mm or a little over, generally weighing around 5 lbs and costing around $6000. The other two are in the 300mm f2.0/400mm f2.8/600mm f4/800 mm f5.6 family, with front element diameters over 150mm, weighing 8-10 lbs and costing over $10,000.
The question is whether they make sense for Olympus (or anyone else) to make? Even in Nikon F-mount, it looks like the 300mm f2.8 Nikkor in its various guises, the least exotic of these lenses, has sold a few thousand per year. Canon may sell 10,000 300mm f2.8s annually, but that's probably high. My best guess (and it's little more than a guess, slightly informed by Nikon serial numbers) is that Nikon sells between 5000 and 10,000 of the big primes 300mm f2.8 and above combined per year, along with a couple thousand of the 180-400mm zoom. Canon may sell twice that, and Sigma, Sony and now Fuji may combine to sell a few thousand lenses in this range each year. Pentax and Phase/Mamiya sell a negligible number of lenses like this (have you ever seen either one other than at PhotoPlus or Photokina?) - old designs that they made a batch of years ago and sell one or two every now and again.
Canon and Nikon have been at this for decades, and have full lines of exotic telephotos. Sigma has long sold lower-priced versions of similar lenses, often with innovative focal lengths or zooms where the competition is prime - a 120-300mm f2.8 that competes with 300mm f2.8 lenses or a 300-800mm f5.6 instead of a straight 800mm. They also have an unbelievable 200-500mm f2.8 zoom that may well be the next generation of legendary white elephants like the Nikkor 300mm f2.0. Sony and Fuji have one exotic telephoto apiece, both recent designs - Sony's 400mm f2.8 and Fuji's brand-new 200mm f2.0 (300 mm f2.8 equivalent).
What would Olympus sell? 500 150mm f1.4s per year? That's almost a quarter of the equivalent 300mm f2.8s Nikon sells with 50 years in the supertele business and the second largest pro user base. Could Olympus sell 1000 of all of the primes and the 90-200 f2 zoom combined each year? Maybe, at most...
The one of these lenses that might actually sell in sensible quantities is a 35-100mm f1.4. Nikon sells about 50,000 70-200 f2.8s annually (Canon undoubtedly sells more than that, but their serial numbers don't point to production quantities). If Olympus could sell 5000 35-100 f1.4s annually, it might be worth it, especially with the bragging rights of "the world's fastest zoom".
The cameras Olympus really needs to make are not a $3000 body with unbelievable features but that weighs and costs more than MANY cameras with far superior image quality (it's going to be the same price as and heavier than a bunch of cameras nearing the IQ of 4x5" film, and it's bringing "good 35mm film" IQ to the party). The right direction is something that takes advantage of m43's size and weight advantages! Update the E-M1 mkII if there's something worth adding, especially if there's a new sensor - the sensor is BY FAR its biggest weakness since even a $1500 camera that lags every $500 Sony-sensored APS-C camera in maximum image quality is a tough sell, no matter how much better it is in every other way.
1.) A $1000 camera that is most of an E-M1 mk II (ideally with a better sensor if available) - it would probably be an E-M5 mk III. It can dispense with the 15 fps top speed (7-10 with AF is fine), and the big battery won't fit. Keep the amazing IS! Maybe it's not QUITE as rugged as the E-M1 mk II, but it needs to be as rugged as, say, an X-T2. Should be as small and light as the original E-M5. Basically, it's a mid-range APS-C camera (think Nikon D5600 or D7500, Canon 77D or 80D, Fuji X-E3), that trades off some image quality for smaller size, a bit of speed, some extra ruggedness and sealing and a superb IBIS system.
2.) The lightest camera they can possibly make that preserves the ruggedness and the IBIS. Go to 3-5 FPS, ditch some of the external controls, relocate the OVF to the left side. Sell it for $700 to outdoor sports enthusiasts!
-
While printing big is one issue with the M43 sensors, it's not the only one... They're also DR-challenged to the point that (given exactly the wrong image), it can be visible in a web-sized image.
poor users of Nikon D3X and other 3/300-series in the years gone... how did they live with their gear beats me... Dan Wells how did you live ?
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D3,Nikon%20D300,Nikon%20D300S,Nikon%20D3S,Nikon%20D3X,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M1%20Mark%20II
and before that ?
-
Not saying you can't make images with less (iPhone is MUCH lower on the image quality curve than any of the above - a couple of generations ago, the iPhone was around the same image quality as Kodak Disc film (not sure anybody has compared it to film recently, and the computational tricks mean it's harder to compare), and Micro 43 is around the level of good 35mm film or even a bit better ).
I just think that a premium priced camera that is large, heavy and has the lowest maximum image quality of any interchangeable lens camera on the market today is going to be a tough sell, even given that image quality has come so far that "lowest on the market today" is still quite good. High-end Micro 43 probably doesn't have the lowest realized image quality, because it'll be used with good lenses, while the better sensor in the Nikon D3500 (etc.) is used mainly with an 18-55 made from the bottom of a Coke bottle.
I thought I was clear that Olympus has potential markets where their size, weight and potentially cost advantage outweighs their sensor disadvantage (and not just at the extreme low end). I proposed both a modernized E-M5 and an ultra-portable camera that is as light as possible while keeping the ruggedness and the IBIS - I think both of those would sell, and would be interesting additions to what's on the market today.
Even an E-M1 revision would be interesting - one market is the huge number of high schools shooting sports. At the major college or pro levels, where the photography is generating money, the photographers will have D5s and 1DxIIs. The kid shooting for the high school paper and yearbook won't - what if the journalism teacher pulls out an E-M1 mk II or III and says "try this". The image quality isn't quite as good (but the press that prints the high school paper doesn't care), and the budding photojournalist has D5 level speed and darn near D5 level AF in a nearly indestructible camera the school might be able to afford, with a 2x crop that means reasonably priced lenses are "longer". Go to a $3000 body, and schools can't afford it any more (it would be great to lower the price of entry to an E-M1 a bit for schools).
What I believe is a fool's errand is specifically building a large, heavy, expensive camera that competes only with full-frame cameras (it would be twice the price of the Fuji X-H1 and the Nikon D500 and substantially heavier than either). Those are very fast APS-C cameras that fill in as sports cameras when the price, size or weight of a D5 or 1DxII doesn't work. The D500 gives up a little bit of image quality for speed, while the Fuji is a generalist that happens to be fast while having the best IQ in APS-C. Neither one is quite as fast as an E-M1 mk II, but they both have better quality and another stop or two of high ISO.
By going above the APS-C leaders in size and price, Olympus is saying "we can compete with full-frame cameras". Specifically, they're saying "we can compete with the two sports titans and the Sony A9" That's exactly what they can't compete with, with a top really usable ISO of 1600 (yes, you can go to 3200 and maybe above for the high school paper). Those three cameras shoot at ISO 12,800 all day long - with quality good enough for Sports Illustrated at those ISOs. If you're shooting the Red Sox for the Boston Globe, you're not afraid of ISO 25,600 and you'll use 51,200 on your D5 in a pinch...
If they are trying to compete as a non-sports camera in the sliver of the market occupied only by high-end full-frame, they have a different barrier. Instead of an ISO disadvantage, they're on the wrong side of a huge maximum image quality disadvantage. They're up against the D850, the Z7 and the A7rIII... The Olympus has a minimum "real" ISO of 200. The two Nikons go down to 64. Suddenly, Olympus is facing two stops of IQ disadvantage from sensor size, another 1 2/3 from minimum ISO, and (assuming the current sensor) somewhere between half a stop and a stop from the Nikon sensor being higher on the technology curve. The Olympus is capable of really good 35mm film image quality or a bit better, but it's staring at something that can approach 4x5" in ideal conditions! Does it matter for the family album? Probably not... Does it matter printing big - absolutely, and that part of the market is where people print big. The Olympus will make a nice 16x24" print - but it's up against the cameras that think nothing of 24x36" and will make a nice 40x60".
If they're trying to thread the needle in between the sports titans and the image quality monsters, mainstream full-frame is right around $2000 (when Sony isn't dumping last year's highly capable camera for $1000 with a lens...). Any camera substantially over $2000 is specialized for either speed and low light or low ISO quality and had better have either 5-digit ISOs that can show up in Sports Illustrated every week or else low-ISO print quality that looks good in a major gallery (40+ MP without shifting tricks, utterly noiseless at base ISO and somewhere well over 12 stops of usable dynamic range). The big-body Olympus will probably be well over that price. Even if they keep it around $2000 (by FAR the lowest price of any big-body camera), is 20 FPS really as appealing for general use as the image quality of a D750 or an A7III?
-
... Micro 43 is around the level of good 35mm film or even a bit better ).
That severely underestimated M43. No color film matches the detail of a 20MP or even 16MP M43 sensor (except in the irrelevant extinction resolution testing) and the ones that come close are things like Velvia with low ISO and extremely low dynamic range. Add in the fact that the smaller formats can achieve a given DOF at half the f-stop and so 1/4 the ISO speed, unless it bottoms out at base ISO speed. Pushing up to even ISO 200 film and the resolution gap is substantial; even more when constraints on aperture size [not aperture ratio] force using 35mm format film at four times the ISO speed.
And I will say again that there are many situations where the longer focal lengths needed with a larger format force using higher aperture ratios and this higher ISO speeds, so all those comparisons of SNR and DR at equal ISO speed become dodgy.
... I proposed both a modernized E-M5 ...
That's my wish right now! I wonder if the sensor shift high res. mode could be done there, it of it instead needs the extra camera bulk.
Even an E-M1 revision would be interesting
Agreed again: with any of the bigger, faster M43 lenses — starting maybe with the 560g 12-100/4 — the deeper grip would be an asset, and the extra 105g vs the E-M5 Mk II not much of a liability.
(it would be twice the price of the Fuji X-H1 and the Nikon D500 and substantially heavier than either).
Would it be heavier that the D500 in a fair comparison, with vertical grip? The E-M1 Mk II is 574g, the D500 is 860g without added vertical grip, 1268g with it, so unless you are comparing the imagined E-M1X with integrated grip to the D500 without added grip, I doubt it. I do not know about a vertical grip for the 673g Fujifilm X-H1, so I won't make a comparison.
And where do you get twice the price? D500+grip is about $1800; X-H1 without is $1650, so are you expecting over $3000 for the E-M1X?
I agree that the market opportunity for the E-M1X looks slim (is it another corporate ego trip or act of flagship posturing?) but you undermine that case with a series of worst case assumptions and dubious comparisons.
-
One of the unique things about the E-M1 mk II is that it offers a LOT of what the best sports cameras offer (other than high ISO) for less than 1/3 the price and much less weight. If you move towards them in price and weight, you lose the E-M1's uniqueness. If Olympus had three cameras above the low end (ignoring the odd, retro Pen-F), could they be:
All with Olympus expertise in ruggedness and IBIS
E-M1 mk III (try to get it down to $1300 if possible, grip optional). 15 FPS, really top-end AF - basically a new sensor (20 MP BSI?) and a few other incremental improvements on the E-M1 mk II while trying to take $200 off. Designed to be a "compact, affordable D5" - the mk II is already doing this. No heavier than the mk II, but mk II size is fine. Hope every high school paper in the country buys a couple, because it's the closest the kids are going to get to shooting the game with a D5 (unless they later shoot for their college paper, and it's a big college).
E-M5 mk III ($1000, no grip option) 7 FPS, hopefully the same sensor as the E-M1 mk III. Take off the extreme speed, which probably means quite a savings on processing, etc. May not need as sophisticated an AF system, because it's designed as a generalist, not a dedicated sports camera. Try to get the size and weight down to the original E-M5.
E-M7 (?) ($700) 5 FPS, less external controls, may use older 20 MP sensor if that's a savings. Keeps an EVF, but doesn't need it to be in a prism hump, can be lower resolution. How small and how cheap can we go while keeping Olympus' two signature features, ruggedness and 5-axis IBIS? This one's for the skiers, climbers, bikers and others who want to record their adventures, but in whose hands a D3500 or a Rebel would die (and it can be significantly smaller and lighter than a D3500 or a Rebel)...
None of these compete directly with anything where the sensor's a problem, and all have really interesting niches...
-
Dan, I agree that something like that product line could also make sense. Maybe one in “flat-top” (Pen-F) format available in a kit for under $1000.
-
I'd wondered if the E-M7 might be a flat-top, since it'll need to use a smaller, cheaper EVF. If it is, it offers Olympus an interesting option. They could build two similar cameras - one ready for action (the theoretical E-M7), and one with more controls and a retro style (a Pen-F successor) - but much of the innards could be the same... If they were the same size, all the boards and the internal frame could be shared, with two different outer shells - one focuses on ruggedness and limited penetrations through the seals, while the other one brings out a couple of extra dials and has a more stylish exterior. That's probably close to 90% shared manufacturing, and it's a cost savings...
-
I find the image quality I get from MFT to be easily better than anything I ever got from film and then theres's the ISO. The ISO's we can get acceptable or even just useable image quality with would have been science fiction in the days when we used 35mm film and thought it was great.
I know some still use it and think it's great, just my VHO :D