Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: armand on October 18, 2019, 09:59:24 am
-
E-M5 iii
Practically a baby E-M1 ii with a little less weight and a little less money. More compact too but the second generation was already quite compact to the point of impairing the handling.
Problem is E-M1 ii already has plenty of years behind. It could make sense if you have to have a compact mirroless m43 but I don't see enough reasons to upgrade. I don't think it's that competitive with the current APS-C, not at that price. I already thought that for my shooting the E-M1 ii was overpriced, this should be the current price for it.
Anybody interested in buying it?
-
Sounds like a nice camera！
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well, it makes the Nikon Z50 look cheap.
A Fuji X-T30 is 300$ cheaper or the same with the 18-55 lens. A Fuji X-T3 is currently only 100$ more. DPReview has also a comparison on prices and features.
The world didn't stay still since the E-M1 ii was released 3 years ago. I just don't think it's competitive enough unless you are already invested in the system.
-
I just don't think it's competitive enough unless you are already invested in the system.
neither is low level cropped sensor consumer body Z50 w/o IBIS, with slowpoke shutter 1/4000, 1/200 xsync and w/o multishot ...
-
I was somewhat mystified by the III. M4/3 has to move beyond 20mp if it's going to survive. I thought this would be 24 or 30, and the would become the new M4/3 standard.
-
The OM-D E-M5 Mk III is almost(*) the perfect second body for me (my original E-M5 is not retiring anytime soon) but I plan to wait for the street price to drop, as it seems to do with Olympus in particular. The addition of PDAF is itself almost enough, as it should make my mix of MFT and Four Thirds SLR legacy lenses more agile, and the weight advantage over the E-M1 Mk II is an advantage, especially with the plan of sometimes carrying two bodies so as to have two lenses rapidly available.
I am not sure why anyone thinks that a jump up from 20MP is much of a priority for this category of camera, and with APS-C and 35mm format still offering new models at only slightly higher 24MP (or even 21MP in the case of the Z50) multiple major camera makers seem to agree with me. I would expect that the great majority of photographers using a small, lightweight system are not particularly into displaying images at much beyond "normal" size; that is, viewing images on-screen or on-print from a distance significantly less than the image's width. So I am still of the old school that for all but a tiny niche of huge print-makers,
"more than 12MP is for cropping and loose framing of moving subjects,
more than 16MP is for heavy cropping, like when none of your lenses is long enough, or you can't get close enough".
And for that pushing of telephoto/macro extremes, it is no use at all to have more but bigger pixels in a larger format and then cropping away a larger portion of them. I'd put my money into a longer lens and/or a TC before going for a bigger sensor and bulkier system.
But I will not make any claims for the 50MP tripod-only sensor-shift mode; most of my subjects are not static enough, even when they are flowers.
(*) To avoid sounding too much of a blind fan, my perfect bespoke camera would have a bigger battery in a deeper hand-grip, since that would still not protrude as far as any of my lenses, so would not have any real adverse effect on bulk. And maybe a bigger EVF magnification — but I zoom in on the EVF for critical inspection anyway, so that is not much of an issue for me.
-
The E-M5 series has shown a lot of improvements across each generation. I had the original one, which hooked me on m43 in the first place. But the button UI was mediocre, especially for BBF. When the E-M1 came out, I jumped immediately. The E-M5-ii was a big improvement over the original, with a significantly upgraded body layout, but I held out and added an E-M1-ii when it was released.
The 5-iii is tempting as a second or backup body to my E-M1-ii. While the different battery is annoying, the in-body charging means I wouldn’t need to carry a second (or third) charger when traveling. As it is, my backups today are either an E-M1 or a GX9, both of which use different batteries. The GX9 does offer in-body charging, at least, but is actually a bit heavier than the 5-iii. The 5-iii would also offer the same menu structure and similar button/dial UI to the 1-ii. The GX9, of course, is quite different.
But $1199 is a lot of money for a backup, so I’ll probably stick with my two choices right now. The GX9 will join the E-M1-ii on our next trip.
-
I’m not the target market for this new one...I much prefer their pro body and use the em1x daily. However....
-excellent stabilization
-feather weight and small space footprint depending on lens choices
-excellent video
-PB based usb charging
-ipx1 weather rating
-excellent focus system
-dozens of useful features for actually making images in the field like focus stacking, live bulb, high res, fisheye correction, etc, in body keystone and shift correction, give some interesting options
-a quick and decent means of editing in camera and getting images to a phone
-a fully customizable camera that allows for configurations that no other camera manufacturer on the market offers
Yes, lots of people know it has these features. These things add up in use to create a totally different image making experience though. People would be good to try living with one for a week. I shoot high end commercial work and no client has ever questioned files from the 20mp sensor. Quality is great, especially if you expose well and understand how to maximize the sensors strengths. If you think you need more, that’s great...there are plenty of options. However, for a lot of people the Olympus cameras are extremely liberating while allowing a much more robust shooting experience.
And not everyone wants more than 20-24mp. Everyone’s needs are different. This is an excellent redefining of the middle ground camera for Olympus. It’s the size and handling of an em10 with the punch and features of the em1.2. I’m fairly sure the next em1 will further differentiate upwards in terms of specialty features like the em1x.
-
I have a friend who is a commercial photographer and switched from Nikon to Olympus 2 years ago. Looks like a nice system. He called on Friday to rave about the iii after testing it for a few days.
He has also never had a client question his file sizes. I think those days are mostly done except for fairly rare specific requirements.
-
I'm ok with 20MP, just hoped for a even better sensor. A better high resolution would have been nice, what the mark ii has is not really usable.
Changing the battery to a smaller one is stupid, after they finally added charging in camera. Olympus giveth, Olympus taketh.
-
I didn't suggest 24mp or 30mp would be better because more pixels are necessarily better -- M4/3 is fine for most uses, though not all -- but because as is, the M4/3 system gives the impression of having stalled with out-of-date technology. I have two GX8s and a large collection of glass, and I am generally satisfied with what I get. But if I were looking at the system anew, right now, and was told that the sensors date back to the first half of those decade (the GX8 was released in 2015), then I might hesitate to buy into it, simply on the grounds that the system doesn't seem to be keeping up with rival offerings. I want the system to at least *seem* to be moving ahead, so it remains healthy and looks like a real alternative to other offerings. (Like the Z50, which, if you buy the S glass, offers the possibility of a large step upward if it turns out that you actually like to do sophisticated photography, and decide to move to a Z6 or Z7.) Within a couple of years, I expect the standard even in relatively inexpensive FF cameras to be around 60mp. M4/3 needs that sense of movement.
-
Wouldn't going to higher resolution sacrifice the dynamic range? After all, APS starts with larger footprint therefore larger pixel sensor so they can add more pixels and still keep the DR. So Olympus traded one against the other and decided on 20mb to keep the DR people expect.
-
I didn't suggest 24mp or 30mp would be better because more pixels are necessarily better -- M4/3 is fine for most uses, though not all -- but because as is, the M4/3 system gives the impression of having stalled with out-of-date technology.
That makes more sense—so long as one avoids the idea that technological progress is inextricably tied to having more, smaller photosites. In this, I am cautious optimistic that Nikon has made a wise choice in equipping the Z50 with a sensor of a "mere" 21MP, for the sake of other virtues, as shown by its close cousin in the D500. The E-M5 Mk III gets what is AFAIK the best available sensor in its format for now, but I do hope for a next generation sensor soon; maybe for an E-M1 Mk III. And what I would wish for most is dual gain, for better low light handling, not either more pixels or even the currently fashionable BSI (though this might be needed in order to implement dual gain well.)
What makes even more sense to me these days is a slower cadence of sensor updates and more emphasis on improving other aspects of the camera, like IBIS, C-AF, and higher frame rates (in particular for high resolution video.)
Also, there are some performance trade-offs with higher pixel counts. Dynamic range is one (as Alan Klein mentions), though not as much as the per-pixel DR measures suggest, because downsampling or NR processing can improve DR in the process of reducing resolution to that of a lower MP sensor.
Another is frame rate, particularly for video where 60fps and 120 fps have their attractions, and a surfeit of pixels can do more harm than good for that usage.
-
That makes more sense—so long as one avoids the idea that technological progress is inextricably tied to having more, smaller photosites. In this, I am cautious optimistic that Nikon has made a wise choice in equipping the Z50 with a sensor of a "mere" 21MP, for the sake of other virtues, as shown by its close cousin in the D500. The E-M5 Mk III gets what is AFAIK the best available sensor in its format for now, but I do hope for a next generation sensor soon; maybe for an E-M1 Mk III. And what I would wish for most is dual gain, for better low light handling, not either more pixels or even the currently fashionable BSI (though this might be needed in order to implement dual gain well.)
What makes even more sense to me these days is a slower cadence of sensor updates and more emphasis on improving other aspects of the camera, like IBIS, C-AF, and higher frame rates (in particular for high resolution video.)
Also, there are some performance trade-offs with higher pixel counts. Dynamic range is one (as Alan Klein mentions), though not as much as the per-pixel DR measures suggest, because downsampling or NR processing can improve DR in the process of reducing resolution to that of a lower MP sensor.
Another is frame rate, particularly for video where 60fps and 120 fps have their attractions, and a surfeit of pixels can do more harm than good for that usage.
Good point. My Sony RX100iv (1" sensor) has 19mb, more than enough for my purposes. I use it for slide shows on a 4K UDHTV which mean only 8mb are required to fill the screen. So at 19mb, I have plenty of zoom room. When I put them on FLickr, I need even less resolution. Unless you're printing pretty big, what are you going to do with all those pixels. Most people who are looking at small cameras either 1" or micro 4/3 are looking at just that - the size of the camera. Something they can stick in their pocket or throw in their purse yet get very good pictures out of a zoom camera. The cameras are saving a lot of backs. Including mine. I don't want to carry a big camera case any longer.
-
I largely agree with the points made above. APSC and M4/3 is not concerning as a format because of MP limitations but because of the slow roll out of top quality lenses specific to the format and in some cases a rather slow roll out of quality bodies featuring things like dual card slots and so on. These concerns are not specific to Olympus of course.
I have never owned an Olympus but have admired the brand since the original OM1 was launched
-
I don't agree about APSC lenses, Martin. Look at Fuji X lenses. There have been plenty of good comments.
Best wishes,
Jonathan
-
I don't agree about APSC lenses, Martin. Look at Fuji X lenses. There have been plenty of good comments.
Best wishes,
Jonathan
I believe you are correct in this. I guess my point of view reflects my frustration with the very slow roll out of pro lenses for the Sony system that I was initially enthusiastic about. Now I’m out the system I see they are starting to produce some better quality lenses.
I resorted to buying full frame lenses for my A6500 and when a really good deal came up for a full frame Sony I bought it and ended up abandoning APSC. I
-
Though the sensor in the OM-D E-M5 Mk III is clearly not radically new (no dual pixel AF or BSI) it seems to be at least slightly different from the one in the E-M1 II; maybe it is the same variant as in the E-M1X.
I conclude this because the current Sony sensor product list https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/e/products/IS/camera/product.html has two 20MP 4/3" sensors and neither fits the E-M1 Mk II.
- The IMX272 seems to be from 2018: it is marked as new on this 2018 page, and its product information sheet is version 1.0 and copyright 2018, too late for the E-M1 Mk II which is from 2016.
- The IMX269 does not fit either as it does not support the 60FPS mode that the E-M1 Mk II has.
Or it could just be that the IMX272 was only put in the product catalog in 2018, after a period of Olympus exclusivity. (Note that Sony had an investment in Olympus at that time, though it has sold it since for a nice profit.)
-
... APSC and M4/3 is not concerning as a format because of MP limitations but because of the slow roll out of top quality lenses specific to the format ...
This seems to have been clarified later; I would say that camera systems in those smaller formats which share a lens mount with a larger (35mm) format system get short-shrift on higher quality lenses, with the makers expecting that gap to be filled buy using lenses designed primarily for the larger format. Fortunately, Olympus and Fujifilm are not playing that game.
-
I was once again amazed yesterday by the marketshare of Olympus among Japanese hikers. They like the weight, good weather sealing, great stabilization and high quality lenses.
People looked very surprised to see my GFX100, couple of large lenses and tripod... ;)
This raises the question though, why not go with a Z7? It appears to be ofering a great compromise overall. Granted at a higher cost, but who will really ever need more?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This raises the question though, why not go with a Z7?
Because FF cameras and lenses are larger than m43. Obviously.
-
Because FF cameras and lenses are larger than m43. Obviously.
They are, to some extent.
But I am yet to see a hiker’s backpack that could accommodate a 43 body with transtandard zoom lens and not a Z7 and 24-70mm f4. Probably some ultralight trailrunners would actually fall in the category, but they go for the RX100 or their phone, not an ILC.
The point being whether the limited gains in size have an actual value that compensates what you give up elsewhere.
It did make sense compared to DSLRs, I am less sure it still does relative to FF mirrorless with top quality compact glass.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard,
to start with, it is a bit strange to ask why so many people do not instead use a camera that costs well over twice as much, and three of four times as much as current options like the E-M10 Mk III or the E-M5 Mk II, which are probably what you are mostly seeing with Japanese hikers with now. I am also puzzled by your bulk comparison, once it is acknowledged that many hikers likely put low priority on getting "artistically blurry backgrounds" through using large apertures so that small, less bright lenses are often fine. For example, my minimal hiking kit can be E-M5 [425g] with 12-50/3.5-6.3 [211g], and maybe for wildlife also the 40-150/4-5.6 [190g] or for extreme reach, the 70-300/4.8-6.7 [423g]. So starting at 636g for E-M5+12-50, already with more reach that that with about the same reach as the Z7 + 24-70/4 [1175g], and still only 615g with "24-300mm equivalent" FOV range, or 1059g with "24-600" range; the last requiring adding a ??-400mm zoom lens to the Z7 kit, even allowing for cropping to 16 or 20 MP. Others might go for a one-lens kit like E-M5 Mk II with 14-150/4-5.6 at 710g (and $999), or E-M5 Mk II with 12-200/3.5-6.3 at 880g, vs Z7 + 24-70/4 + some telephoto zoom.
And please stop this talk about phones being adequate substitutes for a MILC kit; that falls apart as soon as even modest telephoto reach is desired. The gap in performance and flexibility (focal length choices and maximum usable ISO speed for example) between phones and a fairly basic kit in any MILC system is big, and by any measure bigger than the gap between there and a 35mm format kit.
-
They are, to some extent.
But I am yet to see a hiker’s backpack that could accommodate a 43 body with transtandard zoom lens and not a Z7 and 24-70mm f4. Probably some ultralight trailrunners would actually fall in the category, but they go for the RX100 or their phone, not an ILC.
The point being whether the limited gains in size have an actual value that compensates what you give up elsewhere.
It did make sense compared to DSLRs, I am less sure it still does relative to FF mirrorless with top quality compact glass.
Cheers,
Bernard
I think the weight saving while not huge is significant Bernard. You have hiked so know that 100g here and a 100g there very quickly adds up to a good or bad day in the mountains. I found when travelling in the Himalayas that having small light kit allowed me an extra lens which was nice. The problem was I ended up with more and more glass that was actually FF and why weight savings started to evaporate.
-
I think the weight saving while not huge is significant Bernard. You have hiked so know that 100g here and a 100g there very quickly adds up to a good or bad day in the mountains. I found when travelling in the Himalayas that having small light kit allowed me an extra lens which was nice. The problem was I ended up with more and more glass that was actually FF and why weight savings started to evaporate.
Hi Martin,
I have saved 1.5kg this year by going from an Osprey pack to a ZPacks one...
The equipment I pack when I walk is split into 2 clear categories:
1. The items that contribute to creating value in terms of deliverable or experience: camera equipment, quality food,...
2. The items that could take something away (safety, ability to execute the plan,...) if not available/not working as expected: packs, tent, pour weather clothes, navigation gear,...
As long as the safety of my group is not significantly put at risk, I go low on weight for items in category 2 and carry as much as I can for category 1 to maximize the value I am attempting to delivery, namely high quality images.
Yes, all that has a cost, but as long as we speak about people with a normal job working in a developed country, most people who can afford a E-M5-III can afford a Z7, the only thing is that they may have to keep their TV or their car one year more. It's all a matter of how important photography is relative to other kinds of spendings.
Cheers,
Bernard
p.s.: when I reach the EBC 10 years ago after having crossed the Chola pass, I was carrying a D3 and a D2x... ;) Well, I was carrying a D3 and the D2x was carried by the sherpas. I did 4,000 feet vertical last month with a GFX100, 23mm f4, 110mm f2.0, 250mm f4.0, a pano head and a RRS tripod. Had I done that with my Osprey I would had had to leave the 250mm f4.0 at home, and it weights pretty much the same as a whole system based on the E-M5 III.
The point being, that not all grams are equal, and there are ways to leverage improvements to open opportunities to carry better camera equipment.
-
I just checked--
my Z7 + 4 lens kit, ready to go: 3009g
my EM1.2 + 4 lens kit, ready to go: 2196g
800g is definitely noticeable. Plus the m43 kit packs in less volume and has a lower mount weight--very relevant for shoulder mounting the camera. The compact Z zooms are far and away the closest 35mm competition to m43 lenses, but they're still larger and heavier. Telephotos, of course, are even further apart.
Shooting envelopes are roughly comparable between the two kits, but I slightly prefer the m43 focal length coverage.
In nature, I can't resist the dynamic range and resolution of the Z. I don't mind mounting it on a cotton carrier chest harness, since I don't care if I look geared up and slightly ridiculous. Having weight forward helps balance the backpack, too. For travel and street, resolution matters less; and size, weight, and portability matter more. Even just the Z7 + 24-70/4 combo is more than I like to have on a PD shoulder mount clip.
-
Another thing about weight: often what matters most to me is the weight of the one camera that I have in hand or hanging from my neck. Changing to the E-M5 with 12-50
hanging was a joy when walking with that in hand for hours. Maybe my case is unusual; I prefer to walk with a hand always at least partly supporting the camera though it is always on a (wrist) strap, to avoid it bouncing around as I walk.
-
The Z7 with the 24-70 gives you more reach with significantly better quality than the Oly with the 12-50. The 12-50 is the reason I got started with Fuji instead of Oly. If you use the 12-40 it gets closer but still you have better low light performance for moving subjects with the Z7.
The bigger difference is on the telephoto side or if you add more zooms, the Z 14-30 being the exception. Obviously the m43 is much cheaper also.
-
The Z7 with the 24-70 gives you more reach with significantly better quality than the Oly with the 12-50.
Not debating the quality but reach is about the same: the ratio of maximum focal lengths is very close to the ratio of pixel pitch (3.3. µm vs 4.35 µm), so cropping to 20MP from the Z7 @ 70mm covers about the same angular FOV as the E-M5 III at 50mm.
I like to measure reach roughly with a "magnification ratio" of (focal length)/(pixel pitch); it is
50mm/3.3µm = 15,151 for the E-M5 @ 50mm
70mm/4.35µm = 16,091 for the Z7 @ 70mm
And by the way, for the more similarly priced Z6, it is
70mm/5.94 = 11,785
But of course if more reach is needed, there are options on both sides:
- the Panasonic 12-60/3.5-5.6, 12-60/2.8-4 and 14-140/3.5-5.6, and the Olympus 12-100/4, 14-150/4-5.6, 12-200/4-6.3 for MFT, [UPDATED list],
- a 24-105 and 24-200 on the Z mount lens roadmap;
all kinds of size/weight/reach/speed/price trade=offs, so comparing one particular pair of lenses falls far short of telling the whole story.
UPDATE: the above comparison is perhaps unfair because it omits the great array of F-Mount lenses usable by adding the FTZ adaptor, at the cost of US$250 and 135g
-
I really don't know about (or much care about) all the technical aspects, but when I'm wandering around town, I like to carry my GX8 with the Lumix G f2.8 12-35 much more than the Z6 with 24-70. The GX8 is much lighter, but the real thing is, it doesn't have a "big camera" look to it. My town is overrun with tourists carrying a variety of cameras and shooting everything in sight, but most of the cameras are smaller, and I fit in better with the GX8. I can sit on a bench in the plaza with my camera on my lap and my hand on the camera, and it disappears. The Z6 is always there, and large. People think photographers are perverts, but tourists aren't. 8-) Oddly, the Z6 body is almost exactly the same size as my GX8 body, **except** for that big fake pentaprism lump on the top, which makes the Z6 into a big camera -- as does the lens. The lens is *way* larger than the f2.8 M4/3. I have a particular use for the Z6 which I won't get into (and I'll probably get a Z7 and after Bernard's review, I'll be ordering the 24) but for *my kind* street work, I find the m4/3 superior. I also prefer the 4/3 aspect ratio for street and I like other mechanical aspects of the GX8, like the fully flexible screen.
As for size, I have one of those waterproof Eagle Creek packing cubes, about 10x7x3, and I can fit in it a GX8 body, the 12-35 and the 35-100 F2.8 zooms, two extra batteries and a battery charger. The whole thing will slip into my travel backpack along with my MacBook Pro and the other crap I carry with me when I travel. No way I could do that with the Z6.
-
M43 and APS-C systems are perfect for hikers.
I have a complete FF Sony system but for hiking I usually just take my 6400 or 6500 + 18-135. And a Voigtlander 10mm when I want ultrawide.
Nothing FF can touch it for being lightweight and compact and having a tremendous focal length range and delivering really nice images. My A7R3 + 24-105 and many assorted primes are relegated to use from the car for the most part.
-
Another thing about weight: often what matters most to me is the weight of the one camera that I have in hand or hanging from my neck. Changing to the E-M5 with 12-50 hanging was a joy when walking with that in hand for hours. Maybe my case is unusual; I prefer to walk with a hand always at least partly supporting the camera though it is always on a strap, to avoid it bouncing around as I walk.
This is so true.
I absolutely love hiking with my 6500 + 18-135 (way less than 2 pounds) and loathe the same hike with my A7R3 + 24-105 (almost 4 pounds). And of course the 6500 kit goes to 200mm equiv instead of 135mm. It's a bit less wide, but 24mm isn't wide enough for my tastes anyway so when I need ultrawide I just bring along my Voigtlander 10mm in the pocket (where it isn't dragging on my neck).
It's neck weight that makes a camera either invisible or annoying when I am hiking.
-
Though the sensor in the OM-D E-M5 Mk III is clearly not radically new (no dual pixel AF or BSI) it seems to be at least slightly different from the one in the E-M1 II; maybe it is the same variant as in the E-M1X.
I conclude this because the current Sony sensor product list https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/e/products/IS/camera/product.html has two 20MP 4/3" sensors and neither fits the E-M1 Mk II.
- The IMX272 seems to be from 2018: it is marked as new on this 2018 page, and its product information sheet is version 1.0 and copyright 2018, too late for the E-M1 Mk II which is from 2016.
- The IMX269 does not fit either as it does not support the 60FPS mode that the E-M1 Mk II has.
Or it could just be that the IMX272 was only put in the product catalog in 2018, after a period of Olympus exclusivity. (Note that Sony had an investment in Olympus at that time, though it has sold it since for a nice profit.)
The new m5 body has cross-type OSPDAF, same as m1. Sony sensors have only vertical line OSPDAF, AFAIK.
-
Not debating the quality but reach is about the same: the ratio of maximum focal lengths is very close to the ratio of pixel pitch (3.3. µm vs 4.35 µm), so cropping to 20MP from the Z7 @ 70mm covers about the same angular FOV as the E-M5 III at 50mm.
I like to measure reach roughly with a "magnification ratio" of (focal length)/(pixel pitch); it is
50mm/3.3µm = 15,151 for the E-M5 @ 50mm
70mm/4.35µm = 16,091 for the Z7 @ 70mm
And by the way, for the more similarly priced Z6, it is
70mm/5.94 = 11,785
But of course if more reach is needed, there are options on both sides:
- the Panasonic 12-60/3.5-5.6, 12-60/2.8-4 and 14-140/3.5-5.6, and the Olympus 12-100/4, 14-150/4-5.6, 12-200/4-6.3 for MFT, [UPDATED list],
- a 24-105 and 24-200 on the Z mount lens roadmap;
all kinds of size/weight/reach/speed/price trade=offs, so comparing one particular pair of lenses falls far short of telling the whole story.
UPDATE: the above comparison is perhaps unfair because it omits the great array of F-Mount lenses usable by adding the FTZ adaptor, at the cost of US$250 and 135g
I agree that the Z7 doesn’t have much more reach but I was replying to this:
So starting at 636g for E-M5+12-50, already with more reach that that Z7 + 24-70/4 [1175g]
And while the reach is similar the quality is something else, there is no comparison between the sensors. For many conditions it doesn’t matter, for landscape at wider focal ranges it gives you more options.
So far, for hiking and travel, I used 1” (RX100 i and RX10 iv), m43 (E-M5ii with 12-40 F2.8 or 12-100 F4), APS-C (Fuji X-T1/2 with 10-24 F4, 18-55 F2.8-4, 55-200 and various primes) and full frame (Z7 with 24-70 F4, occasionally D750 with 24-120 F4 and other lenses). There is no clear choice between them, it depends on how far you have to go with them, space available, what kind of shooting you expect, and most importantly what compromises you are willing to make.
-
I agree that the Z7 doesn’t have much more reach but I was replying to this:
And while the reach is similar the quality is something else, there is no comparison between the sensors. For many conditions it doesn’t matter, for landscape at wider focal ranges it gives you more options.
So far, for hiking and travel, I used 1” (RX100 i and RX10 iv), m43 (E-M5ii with 12-40 F2.8 or 12-100 F4), APS-C (Fuji X-T1/2 with 10-24 F4, 18-55 F2.8-4, 55-200 and various primes) and full frame (Z7 with 24-70 F4, occasionally D750 with 24-120 F4 and other lenses). There is no clear choice between them, it depends on how far you have to go with them, space available, what kind of shooting you expect, and most importantly what compromises you are willing to make.
So Armand, I have a question. First, I own a Sony RX100iv which I use on vacation and "here and there". I've been thinking of getting an m43. Since you use both, when do you use one over the other? What advantage to me would the m43 be? What disadvantages?
-
I agree that the Z7 doesn’t have much more reach but I was replying to this:
So starting at 636g for E-M5+12-50, already with more reach than that Z7 + 24-70/4 [1175g]
And while the reach is similar the quality is something else, there is no comparison between the sensors. For many conditions it doesn’t matter, for landscape at wider focal ranges it gives you more options.
Ah yes, my mistake (I calculated for the Z6); I have noted the correction above.
And of course the larger, more expensive sensor and lenses have advantages to balance against the other advantage of the smaller system; this sub-thread started by answering Bernard's specific (perhaps rhetorical) question as to why some Japanese hikers would prefer an E-M5 kit over a Z7 kit.
-
... I have a question. First, I own a Sony RX100iv which I use on vacation and "here and there". I've been thinking of getting an m43. ... What advantage to me would the m43 be? What disadvantages?
I think this sort of question deserves a thread of its own. Even as an enthusiastic MFT user, I see some "traveling light" use cases where one of the good 1" or 4/3" fixed-lens cameras would be better choice than any "ILC body plus one lens" option, and I would love feed-back from those who have actually tried both.
-
I think this sort of question deserves a thread of its own. Even as an enthusiastic MFT user, I see some "traveling light" use cases where one of the good 1" or 4/3" fixed-lens cameras would be better choice than any "ILC body plus one lens" option, and I would love feed-back from those who have actually tried both.
Done. New thread here.
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=132572.0
-
Hi Martin,
I have saved 1.5kg this year by going from an Osprey pack to a ZPacks one...
Ohh, awesome - Dyneema Composite? Which pack?
The point being, that not all grams are equal, and there are ways to leverage improvements to open opportunities to carry better camera equipment.
Carry less water is one obvious place to save weight, as long as you don't compromise safety, obvs. A filter can come in handy :-)
-
Ohh, awesome - Dyneema Composite? Which pack?
Yes! Zpacks!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Another thing about weight: often what matters most to me is the weight of the one camera that I have in hand or hanging from my neck. Changing to the E-M5 with 12-50 hanging was a joy when walking with that in hand for hours. Maybe my case is unusual; I prefer to walk with a hand always at least partly supporting the camera though it is always on a strap, to avoid it bouncing around as I walk.
Exactly...the weight of camera lens in hand is what I look at. During travel, I always carry my camera with wrist strap in hand...so a few hundred grams makes a huge difference by the end of the day. A few hundred grams on my back is no big deal...but carrying in hand...makes a difference.
-
So Armand, I have a question. First, I own a Sony RX100iv which I use on vacation and "here and there". I've been thinking of getting an m43. Since you use both, when do you use one over the other? What advantage to me would the m43 be? What disadvantages?
See the reply in your other thread.
-
Bernard,
I certainly agree that it is a viable option for someone to carry a Z7 kit when hiking, if the weight/cost/image quality trade-offs make sense to the particular photographer and situation—after all I used to hike with a “full frame” camera as heavy as the Z7, my Pentax K-1000, sometimes with a bulky 28-200mm lens.
On the other hand, I hope we have answered your question as to why many other hikers choose smaller format systems like MFT for hiking—even some who also have 35mm format gear. I’ll just add one more factor besides weight in-hand or on neck and price: depending on the photographic activities and objectives of an outing, a “better” kit can often in practice produce no perceptible improvement in the final image display, because the scenes and print/display sizes fall within the gamut that the smaller kit handles perfectly well. Then the claims about “better” are as irrelevant as asking why I don’t choose a bigger, more powerful, more expensive vehicle on the basis of its ability to tow a ten ton load, or to go 200kph on the autobahn, or other things that are simply not in my plans.
-
<snip>
I’ll just add one more factor besides weight in-hand or on neck and price: depending on the photographic activities and objectives of an outing, a “better” kit can often in practice produce no perceptible improvement in the final image display, because the scenes and print/display sizes fall within the gamut that the smaller kit handles perfectly well. Then the claims about “better” are as irrelevant as asking why I don’t choose a bigger, more powerful, more expensive vehicle on the basis of its ability to tow a ten ton load, or to go 200kph on the autobahn, or other things that are simply not in my plans.
Printing is becoming less and less common, IMHO, as most photos are now viewed on video screens of one kind or another. A Z7 will produce more pixels than can be used by an 8K screen (assuming you use the full frame) and there are reasons to believe that TVs won't go much past 8k any time in the near future. However, Tom Hogan suggests in a chart at the bottom of this page:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/camera-articles/image-quality/how-big-can-i-print.html
that you can get a "good+" 24x36 inch print at 60mp, and an "excellent" print at 100mp. In other words, a m4/3 would have a hard time handling a print of that size. He suggests that m4/3 sort of tops out on "excellent" prints at about 13x19. If he is correct, and the experts are correct in suggesting that we will soon see a raft of 60+mp cameras from the big makers, then, as they say, the End is Near. Anyone who prints larger than 24x36 (model photos for Victoria Secret stores, which need to be ten feet tall and have smooth skin tones) will need a specialty camera.
I really think the big camera makers need to focus on other parameters of photo goodness, rather than resolution -- stuff basically out of reach of iPhones and compacts. Better low-light response, better color response, a wider range of affordable specialty lenses, much better batteries, etc. I went to a Ryan Bingham concert Sunday night and took some iPhone photos, in which you can sort of tell what is going on, although you really can't make out facial features. A 12-year-old D3 would have blown it away. That's where the strengths of enthusiast/pro cameras lie, I think -- the hard stuff.
-
... that you can get a "good+" 24x36 inch print at 60mp...
I did that size with an 8 Mpx camera.
-
I really think the big camera makers need to focus on other parameters of photo goodness, rather than resolution -- stuff basically out of reach of iPhones and compacts. Better low-light response, better color response, a wider range of affordable specialty lenses, much better batteries, etc. I went to a Ryan Bingham concert Sunday night and took some iPhone photos, in which you can sort of tell what is going on, although you really can't make out facial features. A 12-year-old D3 would have blown it away. That's where the strengths of enthusiast/pro cameras lie, I think -- the hard stuff.
Well, I agree that resolution is overdone, although having the GFX100 helped capture the details of the beautiful fabric models were wearing this Tuesday.
But, although I also agree that camera manufacturers should rather concentrate on strengths other than resolution, odds are that they will soon be overwhelmed by the attempts to... catch up with essential things phones are already doing better today thanks to computational photography.
Look at what the pixel 4 does for night photography... look at the quality of AWB achieved by an iphone... look at the DR easily achieved by phones by automatically HDring 2 frames...
Many photographers will soon prefer their phones for generic shootings because they are going to get good results much more easily with the phone.
It’s already the case with the majority of cheap APS-C DSLRs with which a majority of users get worse photos that those they would have gotten with recent phones for typical web posting.
You bring your cheap DSLR, struggle with the settings, you 15 old nephew shows up with his iphone 11 pro and nails the shot in 2s...
IMHO Canon is going to commit suicide trying to beat Google and Apple to save their mass market share made up essentially of cameras already ridiculed by phones for generic shooting.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Printing is becoming less and less common, IMHO, as most photos are now viewed on video screens of one kind or another.... Tom Hogan suggests in a chart at the bottom of this page:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/camera-articles/image-quality/how-big-can-i-print.html
... He suggests that m4/3 sort of tops out on "excellent" prints at about 13x19. ...
I really think the big camera makers need to focus on other parameters of photo goodness, rather than resolution -- stuff basically out of reach of iPhones and compacts. Better low-light response, better color response, a wider range of affordable specialty lenses ... I went to a Ryan Bingham concert Sunday night and took some iPhone photos, in which you can sort of tell what is going on, although you really can't make out facial features. A 12-year-old D3 would have blown it away. That's where the strengths of enthusiast/pro cameras lie, I think -- the hard stuff.
That all makes a lot of sense to me. I would love to see real data, but my guess is that a great majority of (us) users of mainstream format ILC's (up to APS-C) are doing little or no printing, and what printing they (we!) do is almost always no bigger than 13" x 19" or A3 (which is 11.7" x 16.5"). I fit that profile anyway, so I'll say "we" from now on.
If so, probably the most detailed display we see is what we see on modern 4K or 5K monitors. For example the 21.5" 4K and 27" 5K iMac displays are both about 218ppi, about matching the 200PPI of dye sub prints that were reckoned to match traditional photographic prints for detail. So for detail, those displays about match traditional photographic prints of dimensions 19'" x 11" for the 21.5" 4K model and 24" x 13" for the 27" 5K model — bigger than we are likely to print, and with far greater dynamic than any traditional print.
I am not saying that the pixel count of those screens is enough for such viewing: Bayer CFA pixels arguably have less detail than the full three color pixels of a screen can display, so it could make sense to use about 300PPI camera data on those 218PPI displays. Let's say 288PPI, to fit Thom Hogan's magic number for "excellent" quality! That would come to about 20MP to fill the height (but not the width) of that 16:9 5K screen.
And some of us like to zoom in on parts of a scene occasionally, so there's some value to even more pixels.
BTW, I continue to be skeptical that our eyes can make use of 8K, at least under video viewing conditions of significantly greater than one picture height from the screen, even in the best seats in a cinema. It might be that there is some visible improvement from 4K to 5K and maybe even from 5K to 6K, and the way the video technology and standards go, the route is to just double at each step, so that "more than 4K video" is got by jumping straight to 8K — and then massively compressing for transmission, and even for initial recording.
There will be no 16K video!
-
I really think the big camera makers need to focus on other parameters of photo goodness, rather than resolution -- stuff basically out of reach of iPhones and compacts. Better low-light response, better color response, a wider range of affordable specialty lenses, much better batteries, etc. I went to a Ryan Bingham concert Sunday night and took some iPhone photos, in which you can sort of tell what is going on, although you really can't make out facial features. A 12-year-old D3 would have blown it away. That's where the strengths of enthusiast/pro cameras lie, I think -- the hard stuff.
I forgot to comment of this. At least two of those points — low-light response and telephoto lenses — come down to the simple physics of needing a large enough effective aperture size (entrance pupil size) to gather enough light, fast enough, and there are plenty of cases where a big enough aperture will never be available with a pocketable camera, whether or not it also makes phone calls.
For example if a shot requires f=80mm f/4 in 35mm format (effective aperture 80mm/4 = 20mm) the same speed and equally shallow DOF would require about f=40mm, f/2 in MFT (again 20mm diameter) or 30mm f/1.5 in a 1" format compact, and dropping to a biggish phone sensor of 1/2", it pushes optical extremes at f=15mm, f/0.75. And anyway, any of those lenses needs a front element at least 20mm across, which I predict that phones will never have.
Push that to f=80mm, f/2 so 40mm effective aperture diameter, and already MFT is at its limits and 1" format cannot handle it, let alone any phone. And so on.
-
E-M5 iii
Practically a baby E-M1 ii with a little less weight and a little less money. More compact too but the second generation was already quite compact to the point of impairing the handling.
Problem is E-M1 ii already has plenty of years behind. It could make sense if you have to have a compact mirroless m43 but I don't see enough reasons to upgrade. I don't think it's that competitive with the current APS-C, not at that price. I already thought that for my shooting the E-M1 ii was overpriced, this should be the current price for it.
Anybody interested in buying it?
I replaced my EM5 II with a grey market EM1 II some months ago for less money than I would have to have paid if i had waited for the EM5 III. Main reason was struggling with the pad and buttons on the rear of the camera (not the top plate 2x2 which is even better on the 1 than the5) which is still true of the EM5 III based on the report by Imaging Resource, and some lagginess which I imagine the III has cured. I have lost the ability to stuff it in a pocket with a pancake type lens but increasingly I use my iphone for that.
-
I replaced my EM5 II with a grey market EM1 II some months ago for less money than I would have to have paid if i had waited for the EM5 III. Main reason was struggling with the pad and buttons on the rear of the camera (not the top plate 2x2 which is even better on the 1 than the5) which is still true of the EM5 III based on the report by Imaging Resource...
I have a similar quandary: I love the E-M5 size and weight for some usage, with a smaller lens, but with my bigger lenses like an adaptor-mounted 50-200/2.8-3.5, that is irrelevant and more spacious controls and a deeper hand grip appeal more. Maybe my ideal would be a small-big body pair to match with a small-big lens pair.
But as an aside: comparing gray market price on an older model to list price on a new one is a bit misleading; I expect the E-M5 Mk III to be available at about US$1000 with a bit of patience.
-
But as an aside: comparing gray market price on an older model to list price on a new one is a bit misleading; I expect the E-M5 Mk III to be available at about US$1000 with a bit of patience.
Indeed it is but what matters to me is what I actually have to pay - I don't care if an Olympus distributor in Po...d deliberately over ordered and surplus stock found it's way to UK. In UK pre-order price on EM5 III is £1099 (remember our prices include 20%^ VAT) whereas EM1 II widely available through "official" channels for about £1200- £1300. I paid £899 with 3 year guarantee.
My approach to size and weight is different - lenses are the differentiator - I will trade the greater solidity and IMV better ergonomics of the EM1 for a few extra mm and gm because I won't wave around indiscrete machine gun lenses even at the cost of reduced capability. So I woudn't consider the Oly 40-150 2.8 even though its significantly smaller than FF equivalents (don't think there are any). By comparison, my silver 75/1.8 is sort of cute and non-threatening, and pairs well with the 12-40; the 60 mm macro and 9-18 fit in pockets. (I rarely need more than 75 but I again the 100-300 with a tripod bracket is still pocketable if I really need reach.
-
I’m not the target market for this new one...I much prefer their pro body and use the em1x daily. However....
-excellent stabilization
-feather weight and small space footprint depending on lens choices
-excellent video
-PB based usb charging
-ipx1 weather rating
-excellent focus system
-dozens of useful features for actually making images in the field like focus stacking, live bulb, high res, fisheye correction, etc, in body keystone and shift correction, give some interesting options
-a quick and decent means of editing in camera and getting images to a phone
-a fully customizable camera that allows for configurations that no other camera manufacturer on the market offers
Yes, lots of people know it has these features. These things add up in use to create a totally different image making experience though. People would be good to try living with one for a week. I shoot high end commercial work and no client has ever questioned files from the 20mp sensor. Quality is great, especially if you expose well and understand how to maximize the sensors strengths. If you think you need more, that’s great...there are plenty of options. However, for a lot of people the Olympus cameras are extremely liberating while allowing a much more robust shooting experience.
And not everyone wants more than 20-24mp. Everyone’s needs are different. This is an excellent redefining of the middle ground camera for Olympus. It’s the size and handling of an em10 with the punch and features of the em1.2. I’m fairly sure the next em1 will further differentiate upwards in terms of specialty features like the em1x.
Well said. My feeling too. You really have to add together all the capabilities of these cameras and look at the overall shooting experience in the light of that. I would move on from Oly and my EM1X if I needed to but the reasons would have to be incredibly compelling and they haven’t cropped up yet. In the meantime the Oly kit is perfect for my needs and far more capable than just considering the sensor alone would suggest.
-
There will be no 16K video!
as soon as we will get 200mp cameras there will be 16K video...
-
as soon as we will get 200mp cameras there will be 16K video...
Yes; as soon as we get 200MP cameras that can read the sensor at 24fps, there will be 16K video. We are at 150MP, 1.4fps. Of course one can almost never prove a "never", but I'll stick my neck out again:
There will be no 200MP, 24fps cameras!
-
Well, I agree that resolution is overdone, although having the GFX100 helped capture the details of the beautiful fabric models were wearing this Tuesday.
But, although I also agree that camera manufacturers should rather concentrate on strengths other than resolution, odds are that they will soon be overwhelmed by the attempts to... catch up with essential things phones are already doing better today thanks to computational photography.
Look at what the pixel 4 does for night photography... look at the quality of AWB achieved by an iphone... look at the DR easily achieved by phones by automatically HDring 2 frames...
Many photographers will soon prefer their phones for generic shootings because they are going to get good results much more easily with the phone.
It’s already the case with the majority of cheap APS-C DSLRs with which a majority of users get worse photos that those they would have gotten with recent phones for typical web posting.
You bring your cheap DSLR, struggle with the settings, you 15 old nephew shows up with his iphone 11 pro and nails the shot in 2s...
IMHO Canon is going to commit suicide trying to beat Google and Apple to save their mass market share made up essentially of cameras already ridiculed by phones for generic shooting.
Cheers,
Bernard
Well with lenses like the 28-70 f2 and the 50 and 85 1.2...it seems like Canon is large enough to tackle both the consumer market as well as the advanced market. What makes you think Canon will commit suicide when Nikon will thrive. Given the directions of their market shares...I see it opposite from you.
-
... You bring your cheap DSLR, struggle with the settings, you 15 old nephew shows up with his iphone 11 pro and nails the shot in 2s...
Bernard I think that you are:
1) Vastly overestimating the difficulty that even a new ILC owner has in handling their camera with the fully automated "green rectangle" mode, which is the fair comparison to using the standard camera app on an iPhone.
2) Overlooking that many young people buy inexpensive ILCs for cost reasons, not indifference to quality, and are enthusiastic about learning how to get good results with such a camera. I see them on and around the university where I work; they are like me and many others of my generation with cameras like the Pentax K1000 back in the day.
3) Ignoring zoom ability with even a basic kit lens. Please compare a kit lens(*) at 55mm, f/5.6 ("88mm equivalent") to the iPhone 11's roughly 5mm, f/1.8 ("26mm equivalent") main lens. Cropped to the FOV of that 55mm lens, the iPhone 11 is giving (26/88)^2 * 12 MP or about 1MP, and from a sensor region matching about 1/7" format. Are you really thinking that the IQ difference from the 24MP APS-C format image, using a sensor area about 70 times larger and entrance pupil area eight times larger will not be noticed?
(*) I am thinking of the Canon 18-55/4-5.6 STM that comes in an entry-level kit with the new Rebel SL3 (EOS Kiss X10 in Japan).
P. S. On the other hand, I am enjoying the iPhone 11 and its ultra-wide lens option, when it is the right tool for the job.
-
as soon as we will get 200mp cameras there will be 16K video...
I have a 75" 4k UHDTV. I sit 14 feet away from it. It's extremely hard to see the differences in video I shot when comparing 2K against 4K. If you move in closer, you can see more details. But just watching regularly, you don;t notice except that the picture looks "richer". Not sure what causes that. Would it seem even "richer" at 8K or higher, I don;t know.
-
I have a 75" 4k UHDTV. I sit 14 feet away from it. It's extremely hard to see the differences in video I shot when comparing 2K against 4K. If you move in closer, you can see more details. But just watching regularly, you don;t notice except that the picture looks "richer". Not sure what causes that. Would it seem even "richer" at 8K or higher, I don;t know.
Sony put out a document a few years ago arguing why cinemas should upgrade from the then standard 2K projectors to Sony's new 4K models, so if anything biased in favor of overestimating the advantages of higher resolution. The core claim was that 2K looked fine at a distance of 3 picture heights [PH] or more but closer than that 4K looked better; fine down to 1.5 PH. A 75" diagonal screen is about 36" high, so 14 feet is almost 5 PH away.
How close is anyone likely to view movies, either in the cinema or the jumbotron-equipped man-cave? Even with an imagined floor-to-ceiling 8 foot high screen—about 190" diagonal and over 14 feet wide—I doubt that anyone would sit as close as 8 feet away (1 PH) and be able to track the action side-to-side without risking neck injury. So I doubt it will ever serve to be as close as 1 PH, which scales to some visible improvement up to 6K, though more reasonably, 5K. As I have suggested before, the doubling to 8K might just be the technologically most convenient (and most marketable) way to move beyond 4K, planning on heavy compression to avoid quadrupling bandwidth and storage requirements. At 8K, all would be fine down to 3/4 PH, viewing that roughly 8 foot by 14 foot screen from 6 feet away, and 16K would only help if you sit closer than that ...
-
Sony put out a document a few years ago arguing why cinemas should upgrade from the then standard 2K projectors to Sony's new 4K models, so if anything biased in favor of overestimating the advantages of higher resolution. The core claim was that 2K looked fine at a distance of 3 picture heights [PH] or more but closer than that 4K looked better; fine down to 1.5 PH. A 75" diagonal screen is about 36" high, so 14 feet is almost 5 PH away.
How close is anyone likely to view movies, either in the cinema or the jumbotron-equipped man-cave? Even with an imagined floor-to-ceiling 8 foot high screen—about 190" diagonal and over 14 feet wide—I doubt that anyone would sit as close as 8 feet away (1 PH) and be able to track the action side-to-side without risking neck injury. So I doubt it will ever serve to be as close as 1 PH, which scales to some visible improvement up to 6K, though more reasonably, 5K. As I have suggested before, the doubling to 8K might just be the technologically most convenient (and most marketable) way to move beyond 4K, planning on heavy compression to avoid quadrupling bandwidth and storage requirements. At 8K, all would be fine down to 3/4 PH, viewing that roughly 8 foot by 14 foot screen from 6 feet away, and 16K would only help if you sit closer than that ...
I experimented a little with those once I got a camera that would shoot 4K videos. (Sony RX100iv) I processed the same caught 4K video to create both 4k 3840x2160 and HD 1920x1080. Alternating both on the 75" 4K TV, you really couldn't tell one from the other unless you got really close. First off, the TV uprezs the 2k to 4k. So the resolution is the same. The only difference is that you can see artifacts in the 2k when you get closer to the screen. With the 4k, when really close, you can actually see the there's a one for one pixel display for each pixel caught in the 4K video, which is pretty neat. But at 14 feet, you really can;t tell.
The other issue I found, is that with 4K, you can't create menus with the video software program I use (Adobe Photoshop Premiere Elements)> I'm not sure if you can create 4K menus with other programs? You can only make menus using HD 1920x1080.
Also, I am able to create DVD's with Blu Ray formats. But the speed of DVD's is limited. That means that if you record 4k at 100bps let's say, the Blu Ray disc player cannot output at that rate without falling behind. You can decrease the bps, but then that just adds pixelation defeating the purpose of 4K. So everything goes on a memory card to be attached to the TV's USB jack which handles the higher speed adequately. I bring up this point for this reason. When you go to higher displays like 8K and up, the ancillary equipment and technology has to be able to handle it. Bandwidth effects transmission over the internet, playback through memory cards, USB's, playback units, etc. Everything has to be made faster.
I'm curious if 5G will be able to handle the bandwidth of 8k and 16K?
-
I experimented a little with those once I got a camera that would shoot 4K videos. (Sony RX100iv) I processed the same caught 4K video to create both 4k 3840x2160 and HD 1920x1080. Alternating both on the 75" 4K TV, you really couldn't tell one from the other unless you got really close.
Thanks for the experiments! Can you quantify "really close"? About how close to see the difference?
-
If you'd like to see what I mean, I created a 4K movie and dumped it on Youtube. These were photoes reduced to 3840x2160 and published on a 4k video and uploaded to Youtube. If you have a 4K TV and the bandwidth on your internet, you can check the difference between 4K and HD (2K). You tell me if you can see a difference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MogdCeRNqBM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MogdCeRNqBM)
Watch in 4k then switch to 2k with the TV uprezing to 4K. On the Youtube display, you pause the video. Then go to the three dot menu and change the selection from 4K to 1920x1080 (2K). Run it some more. You'll see artifacts on the 2K if you get very close. The 4K should be pixel for pixel. But can you tell the difference sitting in the back in your lounger? I think there's a slight improvement that makes the 4K richer. What do you think?
-
You can also check both on a SD TV HDTV 1080 or on your monitor. Do the same process and tell me what you think?
-
Ok, so I ran my own test with the Yotube video I created. I have to say the 4K seems sharper over the full depth of where looking especially the closer you get. There's a better sharpness and clarity with 4K even though the pixelation goes away out about 8 feet or so. So even though there's no discernment of pixels, the overall image appears shaper with 4K.
HAving said that, the average viewer, probably 99 out of 100 wouldn't notice. Especially if he was not comparing between two versions. The 1080 2k would probably be very acceptable to him.
There's one other factor. I don;t know what bandwidth Youtube is outputting. The higher it is, the less pixelation. You probably get better bandwidth out of your own memory card attached to the UHDTV than you get from Youtube over the internet. Plus the speed of your internet affects their transmission as well. (So not select Auto. Select the actual setting either 4k or 1080p. So that would affect the results a little as well.
What do you think? How did you interpret it on your TV?
-
I check lettering and numbers and edges of things for sharpness and clarity and pixelation.
-
During my Youtube test, internet speed was 158Mbps.
-
A couple of days ago I went for a walk in the park with the kids, and they wanted cameras for themselves (the desire only lasted for half of the walk but that's a different story).
So for one of them I got the E-M5ii with a zoom. Minutes into the walk he complains that something is wrong with the camera, and I figured it out he was accidentally switching to manual focus. Which button was that? Good luck, I didn't recall so I dived in the menus and changed it there. A minute later, same thing. So I had to figure it out which button was the culprit but good luck doing that with the moderate thickness gloves, I had to take them off. Eventually I figured it out it was the button next to the lens mount which was getting pressed accidentally and after a little instruction things were better. But this brings me to an older complaint, if I have difficulties operating the E-M5ii with gloves, how can I do it with the E-M5iii which is even smaller?
I was able to operate a Z7 (with a little effort for the next to mount buttons) and a X-T2 (no issues) with the same gloves.
Not to mention that it requires constant and frequent use to recall all the options, you can't just pick the camera after a couple of months and use it without issues; if the m43 is your only system that's probably not a problem, but I still alternate between multiple systems and currently the m43 gets used the least.
-
Whenever I run into a problem with settings, I switch it to full Auto and shoot away. Hopefully the camera knows what it's doing.