Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: fredjeang on May 11, 2010, 10:24:27 am
-
Dear all,
People who read my posts here know how much I respect Michael Reichmann's opinions, specially when it comes to photographic industry vision, equipment field reviews etc...
But there is a point where I've always been in complete disagreement with him: MFT enthousiasm.
Don't get me wrong, when Michael "promoted" Micro four third, he was right IMO. Because that was the only serious proposal in what was a desert land.
None of the Sigma DP saga or Leica X could be taken seriously compared to MFT.
Untill now...
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEX5/NEX5A.HTM (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEX5/NEX5A.HTM)
This, is exactly what I thought will happen soon or later.
I had an Olympus E1, and was a sort of fan of FT...but then, I read at that time an article of MR here: http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/came...lympus-e1.shtml (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/olympus-e1.shtml) and as a current FT user, I was aware of what Michael was pointing.
When they did MFT, I was sure that history was about to repeat again soon or later, this time yes, later than sooner but here we are: Sony's first quick fire.
And IMO, they got it right in the middle.
The MR's comments about FT actually happened.
Example of this surrealist situation.
Madrid shop,
Competent Olympus E3 body is sold today at 1500 euros.
FF top level Sony Apha 850 is sold at 1650 euros... no need more explainations.
The promised land of FT was: size will be reduced, IQ will be optimised for digital, and price will be kept low: none of these factors where true.
The promised land of MFT was exactly the same, the only difference is that they started in an empty space in that niche product.
Yes, they where the very first and they did a sort of well done rescue of their FT system with this nice alternative.
But the terrain was already a minefield.
Does not take too long to see that Sony's design is offering a smaller gear, a bigger sensor with the overall increment in IQ, specially in low light,
at a price on par with the MFT. Very very attractive option really.
The MFT empire is now about to decline, exactly like what happened with the FT.
I won't be surprised even if Oly won't survive that blow in the next 3 years.
This NEX 5 is the first MFT "killer". More wolfs are about to come to the feast soon or later.
Can't wait the Michael's review (if there will be one) about that Sony.
Regards.
-
Why don't you wait for people to actually get the cameras before you start this nonsense again?
-
Why don't you wait for people to actually get the cameras before you start this nonsense again?
In less that 2 years you won't call that non-sense.
You just refuse to see it now. Yopu like your gear, fair enough.
-
In less that 2 years you won't call that non-sense.
You just refuse to see it now. Yopu like your gear, fair enough.
Whatever.
-
This NEX 5 is the first MFT "killer". More wolfs are about to come to the feast soon or later.
Well, I followed the link you provided, and I have to say that in my opinion that is the ugliest camera I have ever laid eyes on. Enough so that I hope it's a hoax. OMG. It looks something like a point-and-shoot being mauled by a giant lens. It immediately brings to mind those carrier based radar aircraft (http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/PointMugu2004/Highlights/E2cBanking_1.jpg).
No offense.
-
Fred,
how many times that this has to be said: the total size of a working camera with standard zoom lens is going to be a major factor in the choice of such cameras, and as expected, the Sony NEX and Samsung NX cameras, with standard zoom lens attached, are somewhat larger than MFT cameras with equivalent zoom lenses. This will inevitably be balanced against the somewhat better low light performance allowed by the larger entrance pupil (effective aperture diameter) of these larger format cameras. (A difference which some people persist in attributing to the sensor alone, ignoring the basic physics of light gathering by a camera.)
Sony has gone to fascinating extremes to make the NEX camera bodies small and light, combined with an assortment of optical illusions to make them appear even smaller than they already are (the bevelled top, main body less high than then lens mount, lens mount color coordinated with lenses so as to appear not to be part of the body when people judge body size ...)
My prediction is that both MFT and NEX will do well (I am not so sure about NX) because unlike some forum posters, I recognize that not every camera buyer has exactly the same priorities as me in the trade-offs between camera size and weight, low light performance, desire for a good amount of telephoto reach without excessive bulk, desire for a standard prime offering roughly normal FOV rather than wide angle, and so on.
-
I'm less enthusiastic, both about the camera and the thread, than DarkPenguin.
-
I wrote this thread before the Michael's latest was on line, coincidence. I'm happy that we'll have a field review very soon.
I agree with the content of MR's article.
The Sony design is IMO a very good design. What I expect digital tech is not bringing us old film designs (bad) remakes like often but
new ways, ergonomics and usability that allows digital.
-
I couldn't ever get into the idea of framing and making my decisions through the grace of a screen like that; I never use the ones on my digi cameras for anything beyond histogram consultation. Am I a photographer or am I a scientist at his microscope?
It's my opinion that photographers today have become obsessive about the difficulties or otherwise of focussing. In that same opinion (mine) the single most important thing the viewfinder should offer you, in ALL small format cameras, is sight of 100% of the subject; you can't afford to lose or crop on tiny formats.
It is written (indeed!) that you can't focus well with digi unless you magnify to a zillion degrees - I never could magnify like that with film, was seldom off and neither have I found myself off with digital. It's a bloody great hoax which may, just may have some relevance and become less hoax-like to people shooting flat artwork, but is meaningless to anyone else. Good God in heaven, are we suddenly all doing shots that will end up in Times Square?
It was right for what it was when they made the Ms and even more right when they made the F; they plateaued (apologies, Fred!) and there were no new peaks to climb. All else is hype and marketing and I need food, right now.
Rob C
-
I couldn't ever get into the idea of framing and making my decisions through the grace of a screen like that; I never use the ones on my digi cameras for anything beyond histogram consultation. Am I a photographer or am I a scientist at his microscope?
It's my opinion that photographers today have become obsessive about the difficulties or otherwise of focussing. In that same opinion (mine) the single most important thing the viewfinder should offer you, in ALL small format cameras, is sight of 100% of the subject; you can't afford to lose or crop on tiny formats.
It is written (indeed!) that you can't focus well with digi unless you magnify to a zillion degrees - I never could magnify like that with film, was seldom off and neither have I found myself off with digital. It's a bloody great hoax which may, just may have some relevance and become less hoax-like to people shooting flat artwork, but is meaningless to anyone else. Good God in heaven, are we suddenly all doing shots that will end up in Times Square?
It was right for what it was when they made the Ms and even more right when they made the F; they plateaued (apologies, Fred!) and there were no new peaks to climb. All else is hype and marketing and I need food, right now.
Rob C
I knew you gona hate this design Rob .
Well, yes, the current digital designs that have just cloned so far (and indeed very badly cloned a part of some exeptions) the film age designs are just painfull. You pointed the viewfinders experience and that's probably the worst of the long list of digihassles. I rather get this inovative Sony than a pale cheap clone of an M like those MFT.
Reading Michael's first impression and the review in Imaging Ressource (they are not that bad IMO), got the impression that it is much more acheived than a simple marketing delirium, but as DarkPenguin pointed, it is important to wait for users opinions and more infos when released.
-
Not what I was expecting from the thread title; I expected a rant about how people are too obsessed with MFT charts and resolution/sharpness.
I've never seen MFT used as an abbreviation for micro four-thirds. Usually it's m4/3 I think.
I don't agree with your premise though, and the main reason is lenses. NX lenses will have to be bigger than m4/3. And the fact that m4/3 is a shared standard means more lenses available. Sony still has some big gaps in their SLR lens lineup, I'm not sure adding an entirely new lens lineup is something they can pull off. I guess you could argue that they're going after point-n-shoot users looking for an upgrade and don't need a bunch of specialty lenses; but how many of those folks care about the difference in sensor size between APS and 4/3?
-
Using adapted lenses, like M, is what I'm excited about. BTW, the lenses aren't as big as they look, it's just that the body is so small that proportions are difficult to judge:
(http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEX5/ZCOMP16VS17MM-SS.JPG)
-
Not what I was expecting from the thread title; I expected a rant about how people are too obsessed with MFT charts and resolution/sharpness.
I've never seen MFT used as an abbreviation for micro four-thirds. Usually it's m4/3 I think.
I don't agree with your premise though, and the main reason is lenses. NX lenses will have to be bigger than m4/3. And the fact that m4/3 is a shared standard means more lenses available. Sony still has some big gaps in their SLR lens lineup, I'm not sure adding an entirely new lens lineup is something they can pull off. I guess you could argue that they're going after point-n-shoot users looking for an upgrade and don't need a bunch of specialty lenses; but how many of those folks care about the difference in sensor size between APS and 4/3?
My expectations were similar to yours from the thread title. In fact the thread title made no sense to me at all since I was thinking MTF.
But I now know MFT is quite common - perhaps as common or even more so if google is a fair indicator.
As to the premise of the thread, I find it pretty premature and some what presumptive. MFT has gained enough market penetration and acceptance to be relevant for a while.
-
Not what I was expecting from the thread title; I expected a rant about how people are too obsessed with MFT charts and resolution/sharpness.
I've never seen MFT used as an abbreviation for micro four-thirds. Usually it's m4/3 I think.
I don't agree with your premise though, and the main reason is lenses. NX lenses will have to be bigger than m4/3. And the fact that m4/3 is a shared standard means more lenses available. Sony still has some big gaps in their SLR lens lineup, I'm not sure adding an entirely new lens lineup is something they can pull off. I guess you could argue that they're going after point-n-shoot users looking for an upgrade and don't need a bunch of specialty lenses; but how many of those folks care about the difference in sensor size between APS and 4/3?
Jeff, I agree with you that the lens size, as you point and being pointed by others, is actually what makes the real strengh of MFT or m4/3 if you like. Not so much the bodies conception.
But look at the Pentaxes primes pancackes, (vintages and current) it is possible to acheive a lot in that aspect.
As we know that this industry if it wants, can really overcome many obstacle it is not so unrealistic that they could bring solutions very soon.
This Sony seems to me, at least for the information available now, a more than serious proposal.
What we've seen so far with digital gear is that biggest sensors, more MP, power and correct price have always won the market place. And that these features are each time smaller, lighter, better etc...
May I'm wrong with my thread tittle? who knows...
-
My expectations were similar to yours from the thread title. In fact the thread title made no sense to me at all since I was thinking MTF.
But I now know MFT is quite common - perhaps as common or even more so if google is a fair indicator.
As to the premise of the thread, I find it pretty premature and some what presumptive. MFT has gained enough market penetration and acceptance to be relevant for a while.
Agree 100%, it is presumptive in some ways: I come here to say nothing less than: hey guys you are going dead end road with your micro four third cameras.
Actually I may be totally wrong, but I feel it 100% sincerely, if not I would not have writen this.
I've lived from inside the 4/3 saga and don't find any difference here, if not the fact that as you pointed, the Micro is more implemented now in the market.
So as many things that have been abandoned later.
-
If I'd have to make a ladder of camera categories with size in mind I'd most likely do it like this (Don't take it all too serious):
1. Cameras that fit in the breast pocket of my shirt
(= the real day to day cameras, like a photo mobile)
2. Cameras that fit in the pocket of my jacket
(= the clumsy day to day camera - Compact, P/S, etc)
3. Cameras that fit in a bigger jacket and need one or two additional pockets for lenses and stuff
(= the tools of the undecided: MFT, FF RF, like Leica M)
4. Cameras that do not really fit in a jackets pocket anymore.
(=the even bigger and more expensive tools of the undecided - DSLRs, Leica S2 etc)
5. First real cameras
(= For the freaklings - Rollei, Bronica, Hassies (System V) and the like)
6. Tank cameras
(= For the real freaks - Mamiya Press, Arca Swiss, Alpa and such)
7. Spaceship cameras
(= For the really big freaks = 4x5'' and above)
8. Camera mutations (x-tra category)
(= Cameras for artists: Paper and pencil, Holga (with mayonese or mustard on the lens), Kodak box, pinhole cameras, sand and finger, Lomography, etc ...)
-
(=the even bigger and more expensive tools of the undecided - DSLRs, Leica S2 etc)
5. First real cameras
(= For the freaklings - Rollei, Bronica, Hassies (System V) and the like)
I now accept my new classification as card-carrying freakling: owned all three marques! Only regret? Bronica 6x7.
Rob C
-
If you ask for my opinion, I'm neither pro nor against, at the contrary!
But for something a bit more factual, don't forget to take into account the lens offerings with these new cameras with new mounts (and so far, µ4/3 is the only paved road in this respect, at least for me who uses a WA zoom as a "normal" lens).
-
If you ask for my opinion, I'm neither pro nor against, at the contrary!
Is the opposite of "neither pro nor against" "either against or pro"?
-
Is the opposite of "neither pro nor against" "either against or pro"?
- You can't say it is so.
- You can't say it is not so.
- You can't say its is as well so as it is not.
- You can't say it is neither so nor not.
-
I have nothng to add.
Rob C
-
Don't think so.
Most people buy these babies with the zoom lens kit, and the Sony is much larger. Actually why buy the Sony when you can get a DSLR with about the same size and a real viewfinder???
I think that the real threat would come from a bit smaller than m4/3.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Slight over reaction here I think.
I've never been a 4/3 fan nor likely will I be. However micro 4/3 does seem much more "what it should have been" from the start. So I feel that they are on a fairly stable path with micro 4/3
Sony has had a very mixed performance in cameras over the years. These offerings scream "point and shoot", micro 4/3 (or even the Samsung NX to a lesser degree) look to be aiming for the enthusiast. As far as I can see in the non photographer real world, very few p&s users have any comprehension of what advantages a larger sensor, lens choices..DOF or anything of that nature.
My conclusion is that Sony are doing something similar to their "APS-C DSLR" range. Over simplification..and looking around I'd say they are struggling to even keep users DSLR land (APS-C now), let alone appeal to new ones. The very lowest models A230-380 were pretty much laughed off the market..but they proved one point and very well..that there isn't a massive market for dumbed down p&s DSLR's. I doubt very much these new NEX models will be taken very seriously by enthusiasts..they look pretty weak on a handling and controls points of view..not to mention unbalanced with tiny bodies and not that small lenses.
So micro 4/3 fans panic is over as Sony have it in their heads that most camera users are newbies and they are not even trying to court those who are semi serious or at least trying to learn etc. We also need to dump "EVIL".. ILC (interchangeable lens compact) is far more logical. EVIL suggests a viewfinder and an electronic one..the NEX models have no EVF not even an add on.
I'll start to take Sony seriously when they start making serious products. At the moment the only thing they do that fits that is FF DSLR, everything else is IMO (as a Minolta user still) a bit of an insult to the ideas and concepts of that camera company. Sony are too busy ripping stuff out of cameras to do much damage in the market.
-
Slight over reaction here I think.
I've never been a 4/3 fan nor likely will I be. However micro 4/3 does seem much more "what it should have been" from the start. So I feel that they are on a fairly stable path with micro 4/3
Sony has had a very mixed performance in cameras over the years. These offerings scream "point and shoot", micro 4/3 (or even the Samsung NX to a lesser degree) look to be aiming for the enthusiast. As far as I can see in the non photographer real world, very few p&s users have any comprehension of what advantages a larger sensor, lens choices..DOF or anything of that nature.
My conclusion is that Sony are doing something similar to their "APS-C DSLR" range. Over simplification..and looking around I'd say they are struggling to even keep users DSLR land (APS-C now), let alone appeal to new ones. The very lowest models A230-380 were pretty much laughed off the market..but they proved one point and very well..that there isn't a massive market for dumbed down p&s DSLR's. I doubt very much these new NEX models will be taken very seriously by enthusiasts..they look pretty weak on a handling and controls points of view..not to mention unbalanced with tiny bodies and not that small lenses.
So micro 4/3 fans panic is over as Sony have it in their heads that most camera users are newbies and they are not even trying to court those who are semi serious or at least trying to learn etc. We also need to dump "EVIL".. ILC (interchangeable lens compact) is far more logical. EVIL suggests a viewfinder and an electronic one..the NEX models have no EVF not even an add on.
I'll start to take Sony seriously when they start making serious products. At the moment the only thing they do that fits that is FF DSLR, everything else is IMO (as a Minolta user still) a bit of an insult to the ideas and concepts of that camera company. Sony are too busy ripping stuff out of cameras to do much damage in the market.
The Maxxum 7D was IMO one of the best ever camera design.
Well, I'm not specially a Sony fan to be honest, but read carefully the Review in Imaging ressource and you'll see that they take this product quite seriously.
The Imaging ressource is amongs the websites I can trust or recommend.
Michael's here first impression does not seems bad at all, at least talking about the overall concept.
I think we may have some surprises when he will review the camera in operation. The "who is it for" may change on the field.
Cheers.
-
I think we may have some surprises when he will review the camera in operation. The "who is it for" may change on the field.
Cheers.
And apparently, the sensor is going into pure video cameras as well...
-
And apparently, the sensor is going into pure video cameras as well...
To me that seems like the more interesting product.
-
I've troubles placing these kind of camera's
1) they are well above the budget and needs of P&S users. And these camera's are still too big with a zoom lens attached for those users.
2) for users of the bigger DSLR's that want quality in a smaller package: these camera are still too big with a zoom lens attached to make a difference to the small entry level DSLR's. They can also reuse the lenses they have and don't need to buy lenses for a new mount.
3) there is also a paradox: we got so used to the SLR design that we are programmed only to regard SLR designs as a serious camera, but on the other hand we want smaller/compacter/better designs but what we have now still can not break through this paradox.
Yes, people will buy these camera's, no doubt, but I have a real hard time too understand why. "Flesh nor Fish" as way say in the Netherlands
-
I've troubles placing these kind of camera's
1) they are well above the budget and needs of P&S users. And these camera's are still too big with a zoom lens attached for those users.
2) for users of the bigger DSLR's that want quality in a smaller package: these camera are still too big with a zoom lens attached to make a difference to the small entry level DSLR's. They can also reuse the lenses they have and don't need to buy lenses for a new mount.
3) there is also a paradox: we got so used to the SLR design that we are programmed only to regard SLR designs as a serious camera, but on the other hand we want smaller/compacter/better designs but what we have now still can not break through this paradox.
Yes, people will buy these camera's, no doubt, but I have a real hard time too understand why. "Flesh nor Fish" as way say in the Netherlands
Agree 100%.
In fact, my Pentax KX is just a little (very little) bigger, with a proper K mount. (means pancackes lens line).
I think it is a matter of style, of feeling, these cameras reminds the good old rangefinders, but they are way far from being an M.
The only m4/3 camera I think is really a special tool is the GH design not so much the fashionable GF.
In fact, in my understanding of what a good system is, I rather get (if I could) an M9, even a 8, and get the GF1 as backup.
-
Don't think so.
Most people buy these babies with the zoom lens kit, and the Sony is much larger. Actually why buy the Sony when you can get a DSLR with about the same size and a real viewfinder???
I think that the real threat would come from a bit smaller than m4/3.
Cheers,
Bernard
This camera is tiny with the prime lens on it. Check this video: video look at NEX-5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zARQij5ZSLE)
The NEX-5 with primes (whether Sony or converted M lenses) is what I've been wanting as a complement to my DSLRs, although I hope Sony does bring an external EVF at some point.
(http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEX5/ZCOMPEPL1-FRONT-S.JPG)
-image from Imaging Resource
-
Don't think so.
Most people buy these babies with the zoom lens kit, and the Sony is much larger. Actually why buy the Sony when you can get a DSLR with about the same size and a real viewfinder???
I think that the real threat would come from a bit smaller than m4/3.
Cheers,
Bernard
Come to think of it, Bernard, imagine if Nikon (or someone else) made a fullframe, 24MP version of this type of camera. You could cut down on so much weight with your current setup for landscapes. Attach the little guy to the end of your 14-24mm, zoom in to focus check like with your D3x's live view (the NEX has this,) and you'd be all set. Plus, no MLU to deal with. This kind of camera could be an awesome small option for landscape shooters, since fast AF isn't a necessity, and so many landscapers use live view to focus nowadays. Interestingly, the NEX mount is only a millimeter or two smaller in diameter than Alpha mount, so fullframe is possible....whether we actually see that in the future is anyone's guess.
-
Come to think of it, Bernard, imagine if Nikon (or someone else) made a fullframe, 24MP version of this type of camera. You could cut down on so much weight with your current setup for landscapes. Attach the little guy to the end of your 14-24mm, zoom in to focus check like with your D3x's live view (the NEX has this,) and you'd be all set. Plus, no MLU to deal with. This kind of camera could be an awesome small option for landscape shooters, since fast AF isn't a necessity, and so many landscapers use live view to focus nowadays. Interestingly, the NEX mount is only a millimeter or two smaller in diameter than Alpha mount, so fullframe is possible....whether we actually see that in the future is anyone's guess.
Yes, that is indeed true, but it is not going to happen in the short future, is it?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This camera is tiny with the prime lens on it. Check this video: video look at NEX-5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zARQij5ZSLE)
The NEX-5 with primes (whether Sony or converted M lenses) is what I've been wanting as a complement to my DSLRs, although I hope Sony does bring an external EVF at some point.
(http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEX5/ZCOMPEPL1-FRONT-S.JPG)
-image from Imaging Resource
True from this angle, but look at it from the side and the gap is already smaller. The thickness is the main issue in terms of pocketability, right?
Anyway, I think that most of the people will want the zoom lens.
The LL community is a tiny niche that will obviously want the pancake lens though. Agreed on that, although the Olympus with in-body stabilitzation is IMHO a better choice.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The auto-panorama feature looks pretty cool. I wonder how long it takes for Sony or Panasonic or someone else to come up with an autopano feature which is not limited to horizontal or vertical dimension: just jam the shutter down and wave the camera around until you get a pano in the hundreds of megs Combine with auto-bracketing, DOF blending and a paint mixer for added fun.
It's always funny to see some of the best innovation coming from manufacturers not well-known for their cameras, such as Sony, Ricoh, Casio, Samsung and Panasonic, who are not afraid to try something truly new, and don't have the burden of legacy systems.
-
A thought. Imagine it is the year 2020 and you are holding a current high end camera. What does it look like and what does it do? It will be small, lightweight and resolution will no longer matter as it's good enough for anything. The difference between stills and video will be irrelevant as a still is just a snapshot in time.
Maybe the micro 4/3 format is just one step on that path.
For me it certainly is. I've now sold off almost all my Canon gear and lenses and enjoying using a lightweight micro 4/3 kit. The overall IQ is excellent too. No, not as great as a 1Ds Mk3 and 85mm f1.2 L lens, but not that far off in prints. On the web or iPad almost impossible to tell the difference.
Just a thought...
-
True from this angle, but look at it from the side and the gap is already smaller. The thickness is the main issue in terms of pocketability, right?
Anyway, I think that most of the people will want the zoom lens.
The LL community is a tiny niche that will obviously want the pancake lens though. Agreed on that, although the Olympus with in-body stabilitzation is IMHO a better choice.
Cheers,
Bernard
You're probably right about the public and zooms.
I went and handled the Olympus EPL-1 a few weeks ago, and I was disappointed at how big it was. I shoot my A900 with a 50mm lens a majority of the time, and I couldn't legitimize how the Olympus could save me all that much space when considering the IQ difference. With primes, the NEX is smaller and has a sensor size directly in between the two. Plus, I like that it looks more like a P&S, so it doesn't attract as much attention. Here in Los Angeles, people think I'm paparazzi if I put a lens bigger than the 50 on my A900...and that's WITHOUT the vertical grip. lol.
Here are some more size comparisons from IR:
(http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEX5/ZCOMPEPL1-FRONT-S.JPG)
(http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEX5/ZCOMPGF1TOP-S.JPG)
(http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEX5/ZCOMPT2I-TOP-S.JPG)
(http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEX5/ZCOMPEPL1-TOP-S.JPG)
-
BTW, the lenses aren't as big as they look, it's just that the body is so small that proportions are difficult to judge:
(http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEX5/ZCOMP16VS17MM-SS.JPG)
That compares lenses of about equal focal length (the NEX one is actually slightly shorter, 16mm vs 17mm): no surprise that they are similar in length. The far more relevant comparison is between lenses offering equal FOV, like the Olympus m4/3 14-42 vs Sony E-mount 18-55mm. There the lengths are about 42mm and 60mm respectively, so total camera-with-lens depths differ by about the same 25% factor as the linear format size. Also, I suspect that the Sony 18-200 at right here
(http://www.dpreview.com/news/1005/sony/lenses2.jpg)
looks utterly corpulent beside the Panasonic 14-140 HD:
(http://a.img-dpreview.com/news/0903/Panasonic/14-140_001.jpg)
-
IHNJH,IJLS "utterly corpulent".
-
And apparently, the sensor is going into pure video cameras as well...
Indeed, just weeks after Panasonic announced that will be putting the video-oriented 4/3" sensor of the G1H into a video camera, Sony has now announced plans to do likewise with its new video-oriented APS-C HD sensor, but maybe a more consumer oriented model. Both coming late this year. Where is Canon?
-
The LL community is a tiny niche that will obviously want the pancake lens though. Agreed on that, although the Olympus with in-body stabilitzation is IMHO a better choice.
Cheers,
Bernard
NEX 7 will have IBIS (and an EVF).
I'd say the sensor is at least 2 stops better than the current m43 offerings at high ISO. If they can get a small 35/1.8 out soon that would rock the world. . .
-
I have the Panasonic system with both an GF1 and a GH1 and five lenses. I can get all of that, plus a charger, several batteries and a Mac Air, into a bag smaller than the average briefcase. The problem (as I see it) with the Sony system is it gives up a little bit of smallness (in their lenses -- the size difference of the bodies isn't significant) to get a little more image quality. But if I want more image quality than you get with m4/3, I'd want significantly more -- I'd go to my Nikon FF and accept the size penalty. The basic thought of M4/3 isn't ultimate image quality, it's size, with quality good enough for most publication, and that's what you get. I agree, if you're a guy who walks around with one camera body with a pancake lens, then the Sony is as good as the M4/3. If you have to run some place with a *system,* it isn't, because it's bigger and heavier. I actually think Sony would have been better off joining the consortium, and making a m4/3, than going off with a unique and brand-new mounting system. One thing I'm curious about: will their lenses cover FF? That would be an interesting possibility -- eventual FF bodies -- but I suspect the lenses are made specifically for the sensor size, like Nikon's DX lenses, and won't cover full frame. Two other notes: a big deal is being made about the slight size difference in the bodies...but Sony has only an exterior flash. It's supplied with the body, but if you put it on, the Sony is as big or bigger than the Panasonic. Sony also (according to DP Review) cut down the tripod mount until it is inadequate; and even if they hadn't, I wouldn't have had a lot of confidence mounting one of those big honking zooms on that tiny body, on a tripod. That can be fixed in the next iteration, at the price of getting larger.
-
I have the Panasonic system with both an GF1 and a GH1 and five lenses. I can get all of that, plus a charger, several batteries and a Mac Air, into a bag smaller than the average briefcase. The problem (as I see it) with the Sony system is it gives up a little bit of smallness (in their lenses -- the size difference of the bodies isn't significant) to get a little more image quality. But if I want more image quality than you get with m4/3, I'd want significantly more -- I'd go to my Nikon FF and accept the size penalty. The basic thought of M4/3 isn't ultimate image quality, it's size, with quality good enough for most publication, and that's what you get. I agree, if you're a guy who walks around with one camera body with a pancake lens, then the Sony is as good as the M4/3. If you have to run some place with a *system,* it isn't, because it's bigger and heavier. I actually think Sony would have been better off joining the consortium, and making a m4/3, than going off with a unique and brand-new mounting system. One thing I'm curious about: will their lenses cover FF? That would be an interesting possibility -- eventual FF bodies -- but I suspect the lenses are made specifically for the sensor size, like Nikon's DX lenses, and won't cover full frame. Two other notes: a big deal is being made about the slight size difference in the bodies...but Sony has only an exterior flash. It's supplied with the body, but if you put it on, the Sony is as big or bigger than the Panasonic. Sony also (according to DP Review) cut down the tripod mount until it is inadequate; and even if they hadn't, I wouldn't have had a lot of confidence mounting one of those big honking zooms on that tiny body, on a tripod. That can be fixed in the next iteration, at the price of getting larger.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=35297235 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=35297235)
-
For shooters like me, the NEX is by far the smallest option, and the APS-C IQ is welcome. I have zero interest in using zooms on a camera like this. It's all about primes, IMO.
As far as the m4/3 "consortium," there really isn't such a thing. The only two companies that are supporting it so far are the same two companies that supported regular 4/3. Sony has proven that the the better, APS-C sensors can be put in a small body, and I expect Canon and Nikon to follow suit.
-
For shooters like me, the NEX is by far the smallest option, and the APS-C IQ is welcome. I have zero interest in using zooms on a camera like this. It's all about primes, IMO[color="#FF0000"][/color].
As far as the m4/3 "consortium," there really isn't such a thing. The only two companies that are supporting it so far are the same two companies that supported regular 4/3. Sony has proven that the the better, APS-C sensors can be put in a small body, and I expect Canon and Nikon to follow suit.
Happy news for Bernard,
Rumors here are pointing that Nikon should be in the game before Canon. When? that's the big question.
Example of other Nikon rumors: http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/26/intervie...n-pma-2010.aspx (http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/26/interview-with-nikon-pma-2010.aspx), interesting anyway...goes in the same as you pointed before Bernard.
Well, I also join the Douglas post, to me there is little point carrying a bigger zoom lens than a pancacke with these cameras, even if the lens size is reduced, because then you fall, (and with the EVF quite a lot), on the size of a small DSLR. IMO, It's all about stuff like that:
[attachment=21955:41910205...d002cf07.jpg]
When I was looking for a street camera, I was very tempted by the m4/3 proposal, went to my favorite store and what I discovered? Than with an EVF and the standard kit lens (not the pancackes), it took the same volume as a little dslr. That's what Bernard and Doug pointed here and that's why I think history will repeat soon or later. As I had Pentaxes primes, AND Pentax has a range of real serious pancackes, I made a choice for the Pentax. No regret, can mount without adapter any K mount lenses and as I focus 90% manually, some really serious vintage M primes. IQ in low light is much much better, and to me these kind of cameras should shine in low light situation for their "street" nature, and do not have the hassle of external viewfinder. Also, what concerned and disappointed me a lot is that there are not specially silent being mirrorless, and that is another serious downside to me. The Pentax KX is far from perfect, but IMO, a more solid tool in a reasonable sized package.
Now, the Sony seems to be much more than a fancy gadget even if the design seems another marketing eccentricity. Looking carefully at the features, I'm very impressed to be honest, and I will follow this Sony in the next few months very seriously.
Or...waiting for a Nikon or Pentax http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/...ews_289300.html (http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Pentax_mulls_Micro_Four_Thirdsstyle_camera_news_289300.html) proposal (well possibly Pentax is going to join the micro world instead of taking advantage of their pancackes line. sounds to me like a Leica dejà vu...)
-
we have to wait and see if sony will come up with more small/compact primes then this pancake.......i;m pessimistic about that.
-
One thing I'm curious about: will their lenses cover FF?
We already have a fairly official answer ("NO") from Andy Westlake, a lens tester and reviewer at DPReview, but we hardly needed it: at focal lengths like 16mm of the prime and 18mm at the wide end of the two zooms, covering the far larger 42mm image circle diameter of 35mm film format requires a far more difficult ultra-wide angle lens design, guaranteed to make the lenses far bigger, heavier and more expensive than ones optimized for the format in use with its 28mm diagonal. So it would be crazinesss to impose that excess image circle on the lenses.
My mind boggles at people who continue to speculate that a mainstream product whose success depends on being competitive on cost, size and weight would be thus hobbled for the sake of compatibility with possible future niche product, which is what anything in 35mm film format is and always will be in digital. For one thing, if Sony ever does launch another larger format mirrorless system, it would make more money by selling new, format-optimized lenses to the "camera super-sizers" than by struggling now to allow future larger format customers to buy less lenses.
As to the lens mount being bigger than needed for the current 28mm diagonal format: I do not think so, once one allows flexibility in design for larger aperture lenses and the additional lens design constraints of electronic sensors compared to film. The mount is only 6mm larger than m4/3 mount in both inside and outside diameters, which is the same as the difference in image circle size for the two formats, so by ratio of mount diameter to sensor diagonal, the E-mount is in fact slightly smaller than m4/3 mount. And I do not see many people speculating that m4/3 mount is oversized in order to accommodate future sensor supersizing.
Also, comparison to Leica M mount are misleading: that mount is based around very different more compact optical designs from the film era that require some wide angle lenses to have exit pupil too low to work well with most electronic sensors: witness the struggle that Leica has to go to with off-set microlenses, and first omitting the IR filter on the M8 and then using one on the M9 so thin that it is a bit sub-optimal, while still not offering lenses as wide as every SLR systems offers.
-
For shooters like me, the NEX is by far the smallest option, and the APS-C IQ is welcome. I have zero interest in using zooms on a camera like this. It's all about primes, IMO.
If your sole interest is is a single, slow, wide angle ("24mm equivalent") focal length option, then the current NEX offerings could be a good choice. Though at f/2.8 vs f/1.7 for the Panasonic 20mm prime, you get less DOF control and slower light gathering and need to use ISO speeds about 1 1/3 stop (2.7x) higher in low light situations, so the two dominant advantages of using a somewhat larger sensor are more than cancelled out.
And let us not predict future noise level performance by comparing noise levels between the brand new Sony APS-C HD sensor and the late 2008 vintage sensor in most m4/3 bodes: even the somewhat 2009 vintage G1H sensor shows that Panasonic continues to improve its designs since then. For future predictions I would estimate a roughly 2/3 stop difference based on sensor area ratio. I would also predict a new 4/3 sensor in new models coming sometime this year, using the column parallel ADC as in the 14MP GH1 and Sony EXMOR sensors, but not used in the older 12MP 4/3 sensors.
Of course Sony might make faster primes at more often used longer focal lengths like maybe a normal 38mm, about f/1.7 ... but then the _camera_ (with lens) will get bigger. Accept that low light handling and shallow DOF options at equal FOV are primarily limited by lens front element size and weight (more precisely by effective aperture diameter, aka entrance pupil diameter), and size/weight/performance comparisons between systems and formats become much clearer.
-
Thing is that with the target audience for these cameras (the real target), primes are very very low on the wish list. Fast primes, don't hold your breath. Now where is Pentax's version, they already have the nice pancake primes!
-
Thing is that with the target audience for these cameras (the real target), primes are very very low on the wish list. Fast primes, don't hold your breath. Now where is Pentax's version, they already have the nice pancake primes!
m43 already has my favorite lens ever - the pancake prime 20mm f1.7.
-
Thing is that with the target audience for these cameras (the real target), primes are very very low on the wish list. Fast primes, don't hold your breath. Now where is Pentax's version, they already have the nice pancake primes!
But wait Ben, according to rumors, Pentax would join the micro 4/3 soon !
I'm going to sell my K pancackes in e-bay soon
-
If your sole interest is is a single, slow, wide angle ("24mm equivalent") focal length option, then the current NEX offerings could be a good choice. Though at f/2.8 vs f/1.7 for the Panasonic 20mm prime, you get less DOF control and slower light gathering and need to use ISO speeds about 1 1/3 stop (2.7x) higher in low light situations, so the two dominant advantages of using a somewhat larger sensor are more than cancelled out.
And let us not predict future noise level performance by comparing noise levels between the brand new Sony APS-C HD sensor and the late 2008 vintage sensor in most m4/3 bodes: even the somewhat 2009 vintage G1H sensor shows that Panasonic continues to improve its designs since then. For future predictions I would estimate a roughly 2/3 stop difference based on sensor area ratio. I would also predict a new 4/3 sensor in new models coming sometime this year, using the column parallel ADC as in the 14MP GH1 and Sony EXMOR sensors, but not used in the older 12MP 4/3 sensors.
Of course Sony might make faster primes at more often used longer focal lengths like maybe a normal 38mm, about f/1.7 ... but then the _camera_ (with lens) will get bigger. Accept that low light handling and shallow DOF options at equal FOV are primarily limited by lens front element size and weight (more precisely by effective aperture diameter, aka entrance pupil diameter), and size/weight/performance comparisons between systems and formats become much clearer.
I'm only interested in adapting primes at this point. Granted, Sony did say a couple of months ago that Zeiss primes are coming.
As far as noise levels, this EXMOR in the NEX is similar to last summer's A550, which is a step up from any m4/3. Sensor size matters.
Regardless of camera size, I have been waiting for a good APS-C alternative to m4/3 to compliment my A900 (the Samsung isn't as good as I was hoping, and the mount is too small for M lenses.) Going from A900 to m4/3 was too much of a stretch for me, but APS-C falls nicely in the middle. Assuming 35mm M lenses work well enough, I'm just gonna throw a ZM 35 f2 on the NEX and be done with it.
-
Sensor size matters.
Yes, as I said: the size difference would, with equal technology, lead to about a 2/3 stop advantage for NEX over m4/3 ... significantly less than the 1 1/3 stop speed disadvantage of the only NEX prime announced so far compared to the Panasonic 20/1.7.
As to talk of Zeiss lenses:
(1) If Sony mentioned plans for Zeiss branded lenses for NEX bodies earlier, it is strange that Sony made no mention of them with the NEX announcement.
(2) When it comes to judging the quality of a lens, I do not give a rat dropping for the brand name printed on the lens barrel; the best lenses from any of the established Japanese camera makers are better than many of the mainstream priced AF lenses bearing prestige brands like Zeiss, Leica and Schneider-Kreuznach. Show me the quality of the particular lens, not the brand.
(3) If you wish to play the "prestigious German lens brand name" game, m4/3 and 4/3 have some lenses with Leica branding ... but they are no better than their Olympus counterparts, and in the case of the macro lenses, the Leica 45mm is overall worse than the Olympus 50mm. And as for the Schneider-Kreuznach branded lenses for Samsung DSLRs ...
-
Yes, as I said: the size difference would, with equal technology, lead to about a 2/3 stop advantage for NEX over m4/3 ... significantly less than the 1 1/3 stop speed disadvantage of the only NEX prime announced so far compared to the Panasonic 20/1.7.
As to talk of Zeiss lenses:
(1) If Sony mentioned plans for Zeiss branded lenses for NEX bodies earlier, it is strange that Sony made no mention of them with the NEX announcement.
(2) When it comes to judging the quality of a lens, I do not give a rat dropping for the brand name printed on the lens barrel; the best lenses from any of the established Japanese camera makers are better than many of the mainstream priced AF lenses bearing prestige brands like Zeiss, Leica and Schneider-Kreuznach. Show me the quality of the particular lens, not the brand.
(3) If you wish to play the "prestigious German lens brand name" game, m4/3 and 4/3 have some lenses with Leica branding ... but they are no better than their Olympus counterparts, and in the case of the macro lenses, the Leica 45mm is overall worse than the Olympus 50mm. And as for the Schneider-Kreuznach branded lenses for Samsung DSLRs ...
Well, of course the Panny lens has a speed advantage. We're talking a near-standard lens vs. wide angle. Two different uses.
My simple point about the Zeiss lens possibility is that Sony generally reserves the Zeiss or "G" moniker for their better lenses, and the lenses with the NEX seem to be entry level. There will surely be more lenses to come. I could care less what the name on the barrel is. That being said, if you're comparing the quality of the ZA line to the pseudo-Leica and Schneider lines for Panny/Samsung, you're way off base.
Regardless, I've been talking to a lot to m4/3 and RD-1 users about the possibility of M mount lenses on NEX, and it sounds like a 35mm lens is a real possibility (it's the only lens I need on such a system.) It's all going to come down to the exit pupil distance to sensor and the thickness of the sensor "toppings" in the NEX. m4/3 has particularly thick sensor toppings, which causes real issues with alternative lenses. I may end up with a Voigtlander 35 f1.4 Nokton on the NEX, but we'll see what works.
-
Well, of course the Panny lens has a speed advantage. We're talking a near-standard lens vs. wide angle. Two different uses.
Agreed: my main point is that the only case in which a NEX camera is smaller than a MFT camera is with that short, slow lens, or no lens at all. So talk of NEX offering smaller cameras is rather misleading. With possible future faster prime lenses, NEX cameras will offer more speed with less DOF and greater size and weight then MFT alternatives, as is already the case with the NEX zooms. So, the usual pros and cons of a larger format, and customers will choose their trade-offs.
-
I completely agree. Once both formats reach their full potential in small size, the m4/3 will be smaller. If anything, NEX will probably push m4/3 to see what they can do, size-wise. For me, giving up fullframe IQ for a small aps-c camera is doable. M4/3 is a bit more of a compromise. I guess we each have to weigh what IQ to size ratio is appropriate for our own shooting.
-
Yes, as I said: the size difference would, with equal technology, lead to about a 2/3 stop advantage for NEX over m4/3 ... significantly less than the 1 1/3 stop speed disadvantage of the only NEX prime announced so far compared to the Panasonic 20/1.7.
Samsung has 30/2.0 pancake for NX, it gives an idea what Sony might do next size-wise...
-
I completely agree. Once both formats reach their full potential in small size, the m4/3 will be smaller. If anything, NEX will probably push m4/3 to see what they can do, size-wise. For me, giving up fullframe IQ for a small aps-c camera is doable. M4/3 is a bit more of a compromise. I guess we each have to weigh what IQ to size ratio is appropriate for our own shooting.
That's what I thought.
But look, 4/3 was smaller and after decade of devellopment they did not produced smaller gear than the competition, at least not small enough to make a big difference, yes they produced a poorer image quality than the competition.
So for now, no fear for Oly-Pana, but in a couple of years, when there will be on the market more or less same sized gear with bigger sensors, what do you think the consumer will do?
Sony can release at any time very fast pancackes in a tiny package. This is a big company. When Nikon and Canon will enter the game, and they will, and probably will with a very good first product, let's see how the consumer (us) will react...
-
Sony can release at any time very fast pancackes in a tiny package. This is a big company.
This is turning into dpreview...
-
This is turning into dpreview...
As I don't read them I don't know what you mean, but my point was: I don't think Sony has enter the game for fun, and if they realized that this niche users want faster pancackes they can release very easily such optics, and they won't waste market parts. They have the structure to play and win.
Canon and Nikon will not stand still, and these are not specially known for kidding. What I meant is that the competitors who will enter this market now are really serious competitors. This is nor gona be the Leica X or the DP1 stuff.
-
As I don't read them I don't know what you mean, but my point was: I don't think Sony has enter the game for fun, and if they realized that this niche users want faster pancackes they can release very easily such optics, and they won't waste market parts. They have the structure to play and win.
Canon and Nikon will not stand still, and these are not specially known for kidding. What I meant is that the competitors who will enter this market now are really serious competitors. This is nor gona be the Leica X or the DP1 stuff.
I meant DPReview forums are filled with mostly useless conjecture rather than meaningful discussion.
Since we started: I think you're reading Sony's NEX wrong. The feature set and price of both NEX3/5 places it securely in a lower-tier market segment than current MFT offerings, and as such MFT and NEX are not direct competitors. Further, making high-quality fast primes is more expensive for NEX 1.5 crop sensor than the much smaller MFT sensor. Finally, as has been pointed out by others, lenses with similar FOV than their MFT equivalent are larger, making the camera larger than a similarly equipped MFT camera.
Therefore I can't see fast primes being in demand in the NEX niche right now. Primes are hard to sell to prosumers with dSLRs with so many "good enough" zooms out there, and they're even harder sell to enthusiasts and snapshooters on a camera like NEX which is more about price and size than IQ.
Whether Sony has any plans to expand to the higher tiers to compete more with MFT, and whether Canon or Nikon see enough ROI in the segment remains to be seen. The high pricing of E-Px and Panny MFTs compared to APS-C cameras, combined with the low price of E-PL1 suggests they have very lucrative margins in the high end which might draw CaNikon in - but since there already three competing systems in the segment (MFT, NEX and I think Samsung has a similar system coming) I doubt they'll want to enter yet another crowded and untested segment until it has proven to have wings. MFT sales have shot up like a rocket in Europe in the last year (http://www.dpreview.com/news/1003/10030401gfkq4salesreport.asp), but it takes a year or two for us to see if there's staying power, or whether they will be the camera equivalent of a netbook (ie. small and cheap but not enough power and ergonomics are questionable).
I've already voted with my euros by buying into MFT and am very happy with the choice - hoping there will be more high IQ primes in the future.
Ok, enough speculation...
-
That's what I thought.
But look, 4/3 was smaller and after decade of devellopment they did not produced smaller gear than the competition, at least not small enough to make a big difference, yes they produced a poorer image quality than the competition.
Firstly, are you once again looking only at the size of bodies, or only with lenses of shortish focal lengths? Because as soon as you look at complete cameras with commonly used lenses, in particular lenses with telephoto reach significantly beyond normal, the lens size becomes the main factor in camera size, and APS-C format requires focal lengths about one third longer, leading to a significant size difference. (And when it comes to my favorite lens, the 50-200/2.8-3.5, the APS-C lenses needed to realize the low light advantage of a larger sensor would be about 70-300mm and still f/2.8-3.5, and nothing close to that exists, at least in my price range, and any such lens would be far heavier and more expensive.)
What is more, the size issues with 4/3 SLR lenses at shorter focal lengths are in large part due to the lens design constraints of the 38mm lens mount depth, so much longer than the 22mm sensor diagonal that it requires some highly retro-focal lens designs. That issue completely goes away with any of the mirrorless systems, as shown already by the size of current m4/3 zoom lenses compared to their NX and NEX counterparts: Olympus 14-42mm vs Samsung or Sony 18-55mm; Panasonic 14-140mm vs Sony 18-200mm. In all these comparisons, the f-stop ranges are the same, so that comparisons at equal ISO speed are legitimate as comparisons of low light performance.
-
I meant DPReview forums are filled with mostly useless conjecture rather than meaningful discussion.
Since we started: I think you're reading Sony's NEX wrong. The feature set and price of both NEX3/5 places it securely in a lower-tier market segment than current MFT offerings, and as such MFT and NEX are not direct competitors. Further, making high-quality fast primes is more expensive for NEX 1.5 crop sensor than the much smaller MFT sensor. Finally, as has been pointed out by others, lenses with similar FOV than their MFT equivalent are larger, making the camera larger than a similarly equipped MFT camera.
Therefore I can't see fast primes being in demand in the NEX niche right now. Primes are hard to sell to prosumers with dSLRs with so many "good enough" zooms out there, and they're even harder sell to enthusiasts and snapshooters on a camera like NEX which is more about price and size than IQ.
Whether Sony has any plans to expand to the higher tiers to compete more with MFT, and whether Canon or Nikon see enough ROI in the segment remains to be seen. The high pricing of E-Px and Panny MFTs compared to APS-C cameras, combined with the low price of E-PL1 suggests they have very lucrative margins in the high end which might draw CaNikon in - but since there already three competing systems in the segment (MFT, NEX and I think Samsung has a similar system coming) I doubt they'll want to enter yet another crowded and untested segment until it has proven to have wings. MFT sales have shot up like a rocket in Europe in the last year (http://www.dpreview.com/news/1003/10030401gfkq4salesreport.asp), but it takes a year or two for us to see if there's staying power, or whether they will be the camera equivalent of a netbook (ie. small and cheap but not enough power and ergonomics are questionable).
I've already voted with my euros by buying into MFT and am very happy with the choice - hoping there will be more high IQ primes in the future.
Ok, enough speculation...
Sorry Feppe, you are right. I probably lack your inteligence to be on the right level of the debate so I'll check this DP review forum if they accept meaningful guys like me.
-
I completely agree. Once both formats reach their full potential in small size, the m4/3 will be smaller. I guess we each have to weigh what IQ to size ratio is appropriate for our own shooting.
And I agree that in turn the larger format will have some IQ advantages, mainly in low-light+shallow DOF situations, so I utterly agree with your last sentence!
And to deja's comment on the Samsung 30/2: my guess too is that eventually these systems will tend to offer lenses with about the same combinations of FOV and minimum f-stop (except at the telephoto extreme), like some f/2 or slightly faster primes and mostly f/3.5-5.6 zooms, leading to the above discussed weighing of size vs low-light and low DOF options in system choice.
But let us not get carried away with the current fashion for pancake primes; I doubt that any system will offer more than one or two of those, and they can only ever cover only a tiny fraction of the focal length and speed needs of most likely customers. (A proposed rule of thumb: if neither Canon nor Nikon bothers with a product category, it cannot be that important to the photographic market overall!)
If you wish to speculate about how well any of these systems will do at winning customers (as opposed to winning praise in forum posts) and what sort of customers will prefer which system, my advice is to "Follow the zooms."
-
Sorry Feppe, you are right. I probably lack your inteligence to be on the right level of the debate so I'll check this DP review forum if they accept meaningful guys like me.
I think there's a language barrier as I'm having hard time parsing this.
-
I think there's a language barrier as I'm having hard time parsing this.
Maybe. Sometimes I edit my posts 3 times with grammar mistakes and have a digital translator.
I guess my english is far from perfect, but I'm working on it.
Cheers
-
Firstly, are you once again looking only at the size of bodies, or only with lenses of shortish focal lengths? Because as soon as you look at complete cameras with commonly used lenses, in particular lenses with telephoto reach significantly beyond normal, the lens size becomes the main factor in camera size, and APS-C format requires focal lengths about one third longer, leading to a significant size difference. (And when it comes to my favorite lens, the 50-200/2.8-3.5, the APS-C lenses needed to realize the low light advantage of a larger sensor would be about 70-300mm and still f/2.8-3.5, and nothing close to that exists, at least in my price range, and any such lens would be far heavier and more expensive.)
What is more, the size issues with 4/3 SLR lenses at shorter focal lengths are in large part due to the lens design constraints of the 38mm lens mount depth, so much longer than the 22mm sensor diagonal that it requires some highly retro-focal lens designs. That issue completely goes away with any of the mirrorless systems, as shown already by the size of current m4/3 zoom lenses compared to their NX and NEX counterparts: Olympus 14-42mm vs Samsung or Sony 18-55mm; Panasonic 14-140mm vs Sony 18-200mm. In all these comparisons, the f-stop ranges are the same, so that comparisons at equal ISO speed are legitimate as comparisons of low light performance.
Agreed, although I do think that the NEX zooms were made unnecessarily large. As far as primes, the difference in size between the Olympus 17mm and Sony 16 is mostly down to just diameter. The Samsung 30mm isn't particularly large, either.
Ultimately, as I've mentioned before, this battle between system sizes hinges between the size of the cameras with primes, for me. When I was playing with the EPL-1 with zoom the other day, I was rather surprised by the overall size of the thing. It wasn't small enough for me to seriously consider taking the IQ hit vs. my DSLR. The EPL-1 with prime is a better option for me. The NEX with prime is even smaller, but I don't have a lot of interest in a 24mm equivalent prime as my main lens. Sony needs a standard pancake lens before I consider it a viable system option, but, for fun, I may still get one to play around with M lenses (although I know they're not particularly small in some cases, either.) I really like the up and down swivel screen on NEX.
-
As far as primes, the difference in size between the Olympus 17mm and Sony 16 is mostly down to just diameter. The Samsung 30mm isn't particularly large, either.
At the cost of repeating myself:
- the size difference is due to the focal length difference of lenses covering the equivalent FOV; it is no surprise that lenses of roughly equal actual focal length but different FOV are roughly equal in length!
That is one reason why I pointed to the zoom lenses, which match up for FOV. And the Samsung 18-55 is bigger to so I do not buy this idea that "Sony set out to make the NEX system as small as possible, advertises its small size like mad ... and then screwed up and made the zoom lenses bigger than they need to be". Can we accept the simple natural optical fact that increasing the focal length and effective aperture diameter by about one third is likely to increase the linear dimensions of the lens by a similar factor.
- the size issue is mostly for lenses offering telephoto focal lengths: size is not much of an issue with pancake prime lenses of a normal to wide focal length and smallish maximum aperture, like that Samsung of 30mm focal length and 15mm effective aperture diameter.
That is another reason why I pointed to the zoom lenses, and why I added my skeptical comment about over-emphasis on pancake lenses, which will account for only a very small fraction of total usage.
-
That is another reason why I pointed to the zoom lenses, and why I added my skeptical comment about over-emphasis on pancake lenses, which will account for only a very small fraction of total usage.
Agreed. As much as we love and shoot primes on LL (me included), we are not the main target market for these cameras. The enthusiasts and prosumers moving up from point&shoots won't even look at the pancake again when they realize it doesn't have a zoom "feature."
-
At the cost of repeating myself:
- the size difference is due to the focal length difference of lenses covering the equivalent FOV; it is no surprise that lenses of roughly equal actual focal length but different FOV are roughly equal in length!
That is one reason why I pointed to the zoom lenses, which match up for FOV. And the Samsung 18-55 is bigger to so I do not buy this idea that "Sony set out to make the NEX system as small as possible, advertises its small size like mad ... and then screwed up and made the zoom lenses bigger than they need to be". Can we accept the simple natural optical fact that increasing the focal length and effective aperture diameter by about one third is likely to increase the linear dimensions of the lens by a similar factor.
- the size issue is mostly for lenses offering telephoto focal lengths: size is not much of an issue with pancake prime lenses of a normal to wide focal length and smallish maximum aperture, like that Samsung of 30mm focal length and 15mm effective aperture diameter.
That is another reason why I pointed to the zoom lenses, and why I added my skeptical comment about over-emphasis on pancake lenses, which will account for only a very small fraction of total usage.
I agree, and that's why I made the point of saying "for me." I have little interest in zooms for any of these systems, personally. To tell you the truth, I think the Panny, Samsung and Sony zooms are all too big to make sense for a small system for me. Olympus' folding design is the only one that seems to make sense. Obviously, if each of these systems gets down to their smallest potential, m4/3 will be smallest. The lenses are there, so now they just need to cut down the body. I have no doubts that a Sony 30mm f2 would be somewhat similar in size to the Samsung version, which is what I'm hoping for. I thought about getting into the Samsung system, but I prefer the EP-1, GF1, NEX design over the "mini-DSLR" approach.
For those interested, here is a nice pic comparing size of NEX and Olympus with primes: link (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sparcal/4598590910/in/pool-1379448@N25/)
-
Agreed. As much as we love and shoot primes on LL (me included), we are not the main target market for these cameras. The enthusiasts and prosumers moving up from point&shoots won't even look at the pancake again when they realize it doesn't have a zoom "feature."
Absolutely. At the same time, those moving up from P&S will probably not worry about lens size differences, either. Things like sweep panorama, face detection, auto HDR, simple menus, etc. will probably make more of a difference, but we'll see. Plus, Sony has a much bigger share of the P&S market, so the name might be enough. All of those memory sticks have to be used somehow. lol.
-
those moving up from P&S will probably not worry about lens size differences
The camera makers clearly think otherwise: the size advantage over DSLR's is prominent in marketing from all four makers of the new mirrorless camera systems. As you said above in a different context, "... size matters".
-
The camera makers clearly think otherwise: the size advantage over DSLR's is prominent in marketing from all four makers of the new mirrorless camera systems. As you said above in a different context, "... size matters".
Oh, I agree with that. What I mean is that the Sony NEX body size may trick newcomers into thinking it's a smaller system. That's why it may be a win-win situation for Sony. Newcomers may be attracted because of the P&S simplicity, features, and the small body size, while experienced photographers may be attracted to it because of APS-C and the small system size when using primes.
-
What I mean is that the Sony NEX body size may trick newcomers into thinking it's a smaller system.
Only those beginners stupid enough to buy a camera without looking at it, which I am not so arrogant enough to accuse most potenetial m4/3 or NEX customers of. As usual, by "camera", I mean the whole functioning camera with zoom lens. So I doubt that the "bait and switch" visual trickery of Samsung and Sony, hiding the size of their zooms by heavily emphasizing the bodies and pancake lenses in advertising, will be very successful in the long run.
experienced photographers may be attracted to it because of APS-C and the small system size when using primes.
I also suspect that "prime lens only" enthusiasts will be disappointed in their dreams of any of these new compact mirrorless digital systems offering more than one or two primes. A mass market oriented array of smallish zooms, mostly f/5.6 or slower at the long end, and a few primes. all f/2 or slower, is my prediction for NX and NEX.
-
Only those beginners stupid enough to buy a camera without looking at it, which I am not so arrogant enough to accuse most potenetial m4/3 or NEX customers of. As usual, by "camera", I mean the whole functioning camera with zoom lens. So I doubt that the "bait and switch" visual trickery of Samsung and Sony, hiding the size of their zooms by heavily emphasizing the bodies and pancake lenses in advertising, will be very successful in the long run.
I also suspect that "prime lens only" enthusiasts will be disappointed in their dreams of any of these new compact mirrorless digital systems offering more than one or two primes. A mass market oriented array of smallish zooms, mostly f/5.6 or slower at the long end, and a few primes. all f/2 or slower, is my prediction for NX and NEX.
I'm not calling anyone stupid. In fact, I'm not convinced that you yourself have a sense of the scale of the NEX-5. It seems you think that the difference in size of the Panasonic and Sony kit lenses is extreme, but it isn't. The Sony lens looks bigger than it is, because the camera is so darn small. Obviously, the folding Olympus kit is shorter than both, but the Sony lens isn't huge, and the Sony and Panny with kit lens attached are quite comparable in length (don't forget that part of the mount is exposed on the NEX, making the lens look longer.) We're talking a few millimeters either way.
(http://www.radiantlite.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/e-p1-vs-gf1.jpg)
(http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEX5/ZCOMPEPL1-TOP-S.JPG)
(http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEX5/ZNEX5STRAP.JPG)
Samsung already released their lens roadmap at PMA, and they're doing 3 primes. link to PMA (http://dpnow.com/6833.html)
I guess I'm what you call a "prime enthusiast," and, for me, 2 or 3 primes is all I need for any format I shoot with, from medium format to NEX. Sony themselves said that Zeiss is getting involved in NEX, and I'd be shocked if they didn't release at least a couple of primes. There are many shooters like me who only need a wide, standard, and tele prime (like Samsung's roadmap.) Heck, I could probably get by with only a standard.
-
Dear all,
People who read my posts here know how much I respect Michael Reichmann's opinions, specially when it comes to photographic industry vision, equipment field reviews etc...
But there is a point where I've always been in complete disagreement with him: MFT enthousiasm.
Don't get me wrong, when Michael "promoted" Micro four third, he was right IMO. Because that was the only serious proposal in what was a desert land.
None of the Sigma DP saga or Leica X could be taken seriously compared to MFT.
Untill now...
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEX5/NEX5A.HTM (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEX5/NEX5A.HTM)
This, is exactly what I thought will happen soon or later.
I had an Olympus E1, and was a sort of fan of FT...but then, I read at that time an article of MR here: http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/came...lympus-e1.shtml (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/olympus-e1.shtml) and as a current FT user, I was aware of what Michael was pointing.
When they did MFT, I was sure that history was about to repeat again soon or later, this time yes, later than sooner but here we are: Sony's first quick fire.
And IMO, they got it right in the middle.
The MR's comments about FT actually happened.
Example of this surrealist situation.
Madrid shop,
Competent Olympus E3 body is sold today at 1500 euros.
FF top level Sony Apha 850 is sold at 1650 euros... no need more explainations.
The promised land of FT was: size will be reduced, IQ will be optimised for digital, and price will be kept low: none of these factors where true.
The promised land of MFT was exactly the same, the only difference is that they started in an empty space in that niche product.
Yes, they where the very first and they did a sort of well done rescue of their FT system with this nice alternative.
But the terrain was already a minefield.
Does not take too long to see that Sony's design is offering a smaller gear, a bigger sensor with the overall increment in IQ, specially in low light,
at a price on par with the MFT. Very very attractive option really.
The MFT empire is now about to decline, exactly like what happened with the FT.
I won't be surprised even if Oly won't survive that blow in the next 3 years.
This NEX 5 is the first MFT "killer". More wolfs are about to come to the feast soon or later.
Can't wait the Michael's review (if there will be one) about that Sony.
Regards.
Like most of these sub pro cameras the Sony over complicates and hinders photography. Why can they not build a camera that gets the basics right. The basics for me would be a shutter and aperture control you can see, use and set without waiting for the camera to do anything and a viewing system that works in sunlight and shows you what will be in the final picture. Add to the list the ability for the bloody thing to actually take a picture when you press the button, not some time after when the computer says "yes ok then, might as well". I can't think I need much else in a camera but these days they are usually omitted for weight space and cost, but oh you get sweep panorama and other less important tat bundled in to make the marketing look better.
I can see the Sony might be the answer to something, I just have no idea what the question could be.
Kevin.
-
Sony don't over complicate..they just copy compacts for handling and these NEX models look very much like that. Problem there is most compacts have pretty lousy handling..with a lot of stuff buried in the menus. That does not help for WB and ISO settings etc.
Sony's actual strategy APS-C DSLR wise has been to rip out a lot of menus, so much so that they have almost no customisation at all for the end user. (A5xx models for example)
They've also had a bit of a hit and miss affair with button placement.
So no shocks the NEX is p&s ish based. Sony have not worked out how to do good handling & easy to use. They are convinced sub £1000 buyers DSLR and this NEX are not enthusiasts nor interested in bang per buck. I find that an obvious mistake.
Look at what's going on..it's very clear what the company is doing at least sub FF wise.
The latest entry model is evidently the A290..and it's based on the poor handling A230-380 series..with a better grip, a dated 14mp CCD sensor and a miserly number of on body controls. For users looking for something a bit souped up NEX wise..you're likely to be waiting for a while.
I doubt the NEX will dominate the market..bigger sensor or not. What it might do is force micro 4/3 to be a bit more competitive on price.
Don't get me wrong Sony have a lot of potential, they just have a very limited and narrow minded view of the market, and IMO the wrong team in charge.
-
I'm not calling anyone stupid. In fact, I'm not convinced that you yourself have a sense of the scale of the NEX-5. It seems you think that the difference in size of the Panasonic and Sony kit lenses is extreme, but it isn't.
It is time for me to give, up, because your arguments change in every post. You previously said that "Sony ... may trick newcomers into thinking it's a smaller system". To me, that is an accusation of stupidity, both through the use of the work "trick" and since your photographic comparison clearly shows to all but a very stupid person that not even the tiniest NEX body, with no flash, gives a smaller "camera with zoom" than the E-LP1, whose slight extra depth provides room for its pop-up flash. So now your argument shifts from being smaller, to being not so much larger, if you do not mind having to carry an add-on flash, which when attached makes the camera even messier to slip into a bag.
I agree though that my two primes was an underestimate; I was thinking of two regular rectilinear primes, overlooking special purpose lenses like fish-eyes and macros. So here are the facts:
- m4/3 has "regular" 17/2.8 and 20/1.7 lenses and a 45mm, f/2.8 macro, with Panasonic having also announced plans for a wider 14/2.8 and an 8mm fish-eye this year, for a total of four primes from Panasonic, five from the two makers: http://photorumors.com/wp-content/uploads/...s_1-534x400.jpg (http://photorumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/panasonic_2010_lenses_1-534x400.jpg)
- Samsung NX has a 30/2, and has announced plans for second wider regular prime, 20/2.8 and a 60/2.8 macro lens.
- Sony NEX has one wide 16/2.8 prime and has announced two supplementary lenses to convert it to wider rectilinear coverage and to fish-eye respectively, but with no announcements of plans for any other prime lenses.
So if working entirely with primes is your goal, perhaps you should be looking into either MFT or NX!
By the way, one draw-back of the "small looking body at all costs" NEX approach is that to add a half-decent built-in flash (which would have to pop-up to see over the bulky zoom lenses) or a conventional hot-shoe, some extra body depth would need to be added, making the bodies as deep as MFT or Samsung NX bodies ... just as enthusiast oriented compact digital cameras with flash hot-shoes (e.g. the G11) have deeper bodies that P&S compacts without hot-shoes (e.g S90). The NEX shallow body trick (and "trick" is your work, not mine!) only works if the body is stripped down in capabilities.
The fundamentals of the NEX system are clearly not designed with the needs of experienced, prime lens only using photographic enthusiasts in mind --- even less so that the other two mirrorless systems.
-
- Sony NEX has one wide 16/2.8 prime and has announced two supplementary lenses to convert it to wider rectilinear coverage and to fish-eye respectively, but with no announcements of plans for any other prime lenses.
So if working entirely with primes is your goal, perhaps you should be looking into either MFT or NX!
By the way, one draw-back of the "small looking body at all costs" NEX approach is that to add a half-decent built-in flash (which would have to pop-up to see over the bulky zoom lenses) or a conventional hot-shoe, some extra body depth would need to be added, making the bodies as deep as MFT or Samsung NX bodies ... just as enthusiast oriented compact digital cameras with flash hot-shoes (e.g. the G11) have deeper bodies that P&S compacts without hot-shoes (e.g S90). The NEX shallow body trick (and "trick" is your work, not mine!) only works if the body is stripped down in capabilities.
The fundamentals of the NEX system are clearly not designed with the needs of experienced, prime lens only using photographic enthusiasts in mind --- even less so that the other two mirrorless systems.
The NEX 3 and 5 are just the first NEX bodies. There is good evidence that NEX will include FF bodies at some point, and a rumored NEX-7 this year with a bigger body, built in antishake, more buttons and controls, and a real hotshoe (although it may be the Minolta flavor).
Sony has announced that CZ lenses are coming, which will almost certainly include some fast primes. . .
The idea that the "The fundamentals of the NEX system are clearly not designed with the needs of experienced, prime lens only using photographic enthusiasts in mind --- even less so that the other two mirrorless systems." is quite arguable, given that the current NEX sensor features 60% more area and about 2 stops better performance at high ISO, and there is a strong indication that FF NEX bodies will be coming in the future -- 4 times the light gathering area of 4/3! We just need some more lens announcements (no doubt coming at Photokina). Frankly I would not dream of using a hotshoe on a sub-compact body, yecch!
I think it is clear that Sony plans to use the E mount as the future for its video-oriented and compact interchangable lens offerings. I foresee a LOT of investment on Sony's part.
-
The NEX 3 and 5 are just the first NEX bodies. There is good evidence that NEX will include FF bodies at some point, and a rumored NEX-7 this year with a bigger body, built in antishake, more buttons and controls, and a real hotshoe (although it may be the Minolta flavor).
What evidence?
-
What evidence?
Huge mount for APS. . .
Sony will be going to NEX for their new pro video mount and this mount is likely the (longer term) future of their still photography also.
Sony already makes and sells FF sensors for their dSLRs.
-
Huge mount for APS. . .
Sony will be going to NEX for their new pro video mount and this mount is likely the (longer term) future of their still photography also.
Sony already makes and sells FF sensors for their dSLRs.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=35309023 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=35309023)
-
Huge mount for APS. . .
It is not huge: the NEX mount is only 6mm larger in both inner and outer diameter than the m4/3 mount, the same as the difference in sensor diagonal between m4/3 and current NEX sensors, and I have not seen suggestions that m4/3 mount is oversized: in fact one critic has claimed (wrongly though) that m4/3 mount is too small to accommodate the fastest 4/3 SLR lenses when used with adaptors. The mount size could well have be chosen simply to allow flexibility in lens designs, including the retro-focal wide angle lens designs needed when using sensors with microlenses, so that some lens designs might need to be far bulkier than film rangefinder camera lenses. (The short back-focus allowed by mirrorless designs does not at all eliminate the need for fairly high exit pupil position, a.k.a. "near telecentricity" and thus for highly retro-focal designs for good performance in the widest lenses.)
Maybe the mount just looks huge because the bodies are so low!
Sony will be going to NEX for their new pro video mount and this mount is likely the (longer term) future of their still photography also.
Sony has said only that it will be using NEX mount in one video camera: where has Sony said that NEX mount will take over in its pro video cameras? And what is the connection to 35mmFF (36x24mm) when none of Sony's video cameras are in that format, not even the $200,000+ Cine-Alta F35. In cine-cameras, 35mm format is "single frame", about 24mm wide, so about "APS-C" size.
By the way, several people have referred to Sony talking about Zeiss lenses for NEX: does anyone have a link for that?
-
The mount isn't a lot smaller than A mount which caters for FF obviously. How big is the mount for Samsung's NX system? Certainly looks smaller than this Sony one, both APS-C sensors. Also with a smaller body (really small) it makes the mount look even larger. I guess it depends what you are after, I think the G1/NX type bodies are more appealing and practical for some users.
I don't think the technology is mature enough for these types of cameras, take a look at the size of the lenses v a bunch of Voigtländer lenses. No comparison at all, these are way bigger.
-
It is time for me to give, up, because your arguments change in every post. You previously said that "Sony ... may trick newcomers into thinking it's a smaller system". To me, that is an accusation of stupidity, both through the use of the work "trick" and since your photographic comparison clearly shows to all but a very stupid person that not even the tiniest NEX body, with no flash, gives a smaller "camera with zoom" than the E-LP1, whose slight extra depth provides room for its pop-up flash. So now your argument shifts from being smaller, to being not so much larger, if you do not mind having to carry an add-on flash, which when attached makes the camera even messier to slip into a bag.
I agree though that my two primes was an underestimate; I was thinking of two regular rectilinear primes, overlooking special purpose lenses like fish-eyes and macros. So here are the facts:
- m4/3 has "regular" 17/2.8 and 20/1.7 lenses and a 45mm, f/2.8 macro, with Panasonic having also announced plans for a wider 14/2.8 and an 8mm fish-eye this year, for a total of four primes from Panasonic, five from the two makers: http://photorumors.com/wp-content/uploads/...s_1-534x400.jpg (http://photorumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/panasonic_2010_lenses_1-534x400.jpg)
- Samsung NX has a 30/2, and has announced plans for second wider regular prime, 20/2.8 and a 60/2.8 macro lens.
- Sony NEX has one wide 16/2.8 prime and has announced two supplementary lenses to convert it to wider rectilinear coverage and to fish-eye respectively, but with no announcements of plans for any other prime lenses.
So if working entirely with primes is your goal, perhaps you should be looking into either MFT or NX!
By the way, one draw-back of the "small looking body at all costs" NEX approach is that to add a half-decent built-in flash (which would have to pop-up to see over the bulky zoom lenses) or a conventional hot-shoe, some extra body depth would need to be added, making the bodies as deep as MFT or Samsung NX bodies ... just as enthusiast oriented compact digital cameras with flash hot-shoes (e.g. the G11) have deeper bodies that P&S compacts without hot-shoes (e.g S90). The NEX shallow body trick (and "trick" is your work, not mine!) only works if the body is stripped down in capabilities.
The fundamentals of the NEX system are clearly not designed with the needs of experienced, prime lens only using photographic enthusiasts in mind --- even less so that the other two mirrorless systems.
Yeah, I think we're at a misunderstanding about my comments about being "tricked." I certainly didn't mean it to imply stupidity on anyone's part. I posted those pictures to show the size relationship between NEX and the GF1 with kit lens. I've said many times that the Olympus' folding kit lens is obviously smaller. However, the length of the Panny and NEX with kit lens is similar. So, by "tricked" I simply mean that Sony can say "we have the smallest ILC out there," when, in actuality, it's only smaller than the GF1 in 2 of the 3 dimensions with a kit lens, and is actually larger than the EPL-1 in one dimension with the kit lens.
I've been waiting for a small, interchangeable lens APS-C camera that can take primes. I have little interest in m4/3 due to DOF and sensor performance. Samsung may just be the right camera for me, but I was hoping to mount M lenses, which it can't do, and I don't like the mini-DSLR design. NEX is the closest thing that works for me, but Sony needs to bring a standard prime (or M lenses need to work well.)
-
The mount isn't a lot smaller than A mount which caters for FF obviously. How big is the mount for Samsung's NX system? Certainly looks smaller than this Sony one, both APS-C sensors. Also with a smaller body (really small) it makes the mount look even larger. I guess it depends what you are after, I think the G1/NX type bodies are more appealing and practical for some users.
I don't think the technology is mature enough for these types of cameras, take a look at the size of the lenses v a bunch of Voigtländer lenses. No comparison at all, these are way bigger.
I agree with BJL that the NEX mount isn't unnecessarily large, Barry. Voigtlander M lenses (and M lenses in general) aren't designed for digital, and anything around 35mm or wider has a hard time performing well on digital, because the light rays at the edges are severely angled. That's why Leica has had a heck of a time designing sensors with special microlenses to deal with the edges of the sensor. m4/3 has a particularly tough time with M lenses, because, although the sensor is smaller than APS-C and 35mm, the toppings on the sensor are thicker than just about anything out there. At ~4.5mm, these toppings are nearly double the thickness of most, and considerably thicker than the M9's. This wreaks havoc at the edges with M lenses, and I'm hoping the NEX (although the sensor is bigger) performs better with 35mm M lenses. We'll see.
link to interesting thread about sensor glass thickness. (http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00M5ag)
*note: one exception seems to be the Contax 35mm f2 G rangefinder lens. Its design allows it to perform well on m4/3.
-
I've been waiting for a small, interchangeable lens APS-C camera that can take primes. I have little interest in m4/3 due to DOF and sensor performance. Samsung may just be the right camera for me, but I was hoping to mount M lenses, which it can't do, and I don't like the mini-DSLR design. NEX is the closest thing that works for me, but Sony needs to bring a standard prime (or M lenses need to work well.)
Perhaps we agree on this: if and when Sony offers primes f/2 or faster at the focal lengths you want, it will likely be the best of the mirrorless digital systems for you. Because then (but not until!) its lenses will offer shallower DOF options and better low light performance than m4/3 with its fastest current lens, the 20/1.7. And there will likely soon be adaptors for using M mount lenses on NEX, and indeed for using almost every 35mm format lens ever made that has an aperture ring, so long as you do not mind manual focus and stop-down metering. I believe that Novoflex has indicated its plans for NEX-to-old-lens adaptors, like the numerous ones it already makes for m4/3.
P. S. Having read your post above and its link more carefully, I am skeptical that Sony has any incentive to keep the sensor topping thickness down to the level that Leica has strived for (first by omitting the IR filter in the M8, then making it very thin in the M9, and so a bit underperforming), let alone to add off-center micro-lenses. So I suspect that many lenses designed for film rangefinders will always have their "issues" when used on any of the new mirrorless digital systems.
-
P. S. Having read your post above and its link more carefully, I am skeptical that Sony has any incentive to keep the sensor topping thickness down to the level that Leica has strived for (first by omitting the IR filter in the M8, then making it very thin in the M9, and so a bit underperforming), let alone to add off-center micro-lenses. So I suspect that many lenses designed for film rangefinders will always have their "issues" when used on any of the new mirrorless digital systems.
Absolutely. There is no way that the NEX sensor toppings will be at Leica levels. However, even if Sony uses a more standard thickness, in the ~2-3mm range, it'll be a substantial improvement over m4/3's ~4.5mm. Granted, the NEX sensor is bigger than m4/3, so it could all even itself out. Like I mentioned earlier, the Contax G 35mm f2 shouldn't be a problem, but those adapters are a bit more complicated (focusing gears,) and I don't know if/when we'll see those for NEX (they just became readily available for m4/3 in the last few months, I believe.)
p.s. here's some good news about that mediocre seeming 16mm NEX prime: link (http://www.dpreview.com/news/1005/10051801sonynexlens.asp)
-
p.s. here's some good news about that mediocre seeming 16mm NEX prime: link (http://www.dpreview.com/news/1005/10051801sonynexlens.asp)
This back-tracking (after describing the gear sent out for review review as production models), along with Sony's acknowledgement that it intends its E-mount to A-mount adaptors to support AF when used with those A-mount lenses that have AF motors but did not manage to do so at initial release and suggesting that a firmware update will fix that, gives the air of some rush in bringing NEX to market. Hopefully Sony will get the kinks worked out, including maybe a bit of downsizing of future zoom lenses.
Olympus showed similar signs of a rush in the early days of m4/3 like the peculiar absence of an EVF option for the E-P1 and its 17/2.8 being inferior to the Panasonic 20/1.7. I get the feeling that for now, Panasonic is the pacesetter.
-
This back-tracking (after describing the gear sent out for review review as production models), along with Sony's acknowledgement that it intends its E-mount to A-mount adaptors to support AF when used with those A-mount lenses that have AF motors but did not manage to do so at initial release and suggesting that a firmware update will fix that, gives the air of some rush in bringing NEX to market. Hopefully Sony will get the kinks worked out, including maybe a bit of downsizing of future zoom lenses.
Agreed. I think the whole seem things rushed. We'll have to wait and see whether that was a good move or not.
-
Olympus showed similar signs of a rush in the early days of m4/3 like the peculiar absence of an EVF option for the E-P1 and its 17/2.8 being inferior to the Panasonic 20/1.7. I get the feeling that for now, Panasonic is the pacesetter.
The same is with the 14-4xmm lenses: the Panasonic has much better IQ than the Olympus version. But prices reflect the IQ - the Olympus lenses are much cheaper.
I don't see the delay on offering EVF peculiar at all; I bet its sales are minimal, especially at the offered price.
-
1. Cameras that fit in the breast pocket of my shirt
(= the real day to day cameras, like a photo mobile)
CAMERAS THAT I CAN SMOKE
2. Cameras that fit in the pocket of my jacket
(= the clumsy day to day camera - Compact, P/S, etc)
CAMERAS THAT I CAN SNACK ON
3. Cameras that fit in a bigger jacket and need one or two additional pockets for lenses and stuff
(= the tools of the undecided: MFT, FF RF, like Leica M)
CAMERAS THAT I CAN DRINK AFTER LUNCH
4. Cameras that do not really fit in a jackets pocket anymore.
(=the even bigger and more expensive tools of the undecided - DSLRs, Leica S2 etc)
CAMERAS THAT I CAN CARRY IN MY KIDS' TRAILER-TROLLEY TO CHECK THE MAIL
5. First real cameras
(= For the freaklings - Rollei, Bronica, Hassies (System V) and the like)
CAMERAS THAT I CAN CONSIGN TO HISTORY AND CASH IN FOR MORE THEN THEY ARE WORTH
6. Tank cameras
(= For the real freaks - Mamiya Press, Arca Swiss, Alpa and such)
CAMERAS THAT I CAN DRIVE IN
7. Spaceship cameras
(= For the really big freaks = 4x5'' and above)
CAMERAS THAT I CAN LIVE IN
8. Camera mutations (x-tra category)
(= Cameras for artists: Paper and pencil, Holga (with mayonese or mustard on the lens), Kodak box, pinhole cameras, sand and finger, Lomography, etc ...)
CAMERAS THAT I CAN BREED
-
Here is an interesting size comparison of the NEX-3 and the G10 with their standard kit lenses. The NEX-3 is the slightly larger of the two NEX cameras.
(http://hi-tech.mail.ru/static/img/review/2291/c5ca3f31b1273d3e9061706f761741de_small.jpg)
-
Both don't fit into my shirts chest pocket...
-
Both don't fit into my shirts chest pocket...
Agreed. That's why I'd only shoot primes with either camera. That gets the NEX close to shirt pocketable. I guess it depends on the size of the shirt. lol.
-
IMO talking about day to day portability only makes sense in M4/3 with pancake primes. On the other side, I find fast pancake primes the really interesting usage for these cameras.
If I were to use a zoom on a M4/3 camera, I'd take my 350D instead, with a better performance sensor than today's M4/3 Panas and Olys and similar portability.
Regards
-
IMO talking about day to day portability only makes sense in M4/3 with pancake primes. On the other side, I find fast pancake primes the really interesting usage for these cameras.
If I were to use a zoom on a M4/3 camera, I'd take my 350D instead, with a better performance sensor than today's M4/3 Panas and Olys and similar portability.
Regards
I find that the overall 'bulk' of my GF1 is considerably less than even a compact DSLR, such as the 350D. So, certainly the GF1 with pancake is smaller, but if I pack it along with the 14-45 zoom into one of my tiny Crumpler bags I have a very useful and compact kit. Yes, a camera like the 350D has a better sensor, but how much better, really, is the image quality?
For my purposes, which means street and candid photography, the M43 systems offer tiny, powerful and discreet packages with excellent image quality for the intended output - to print or online. The overall bulk is way less than a compact DSLR, and of course dramatically different than my 5D.
I have been very pleasantly surprised by the GF1 , which I chose over the EP series largely because of what I regard as a superior UI.
-
Yes, a camera like the 350D has a better sensor, but how much better, really, is the image quality?
Nearly one extra stop in dynamic range, i.e. the GF1 displays twice as much noise in the shadows as the 350D. Not to mention you can get a second hand 350D for 150 EUR, but need to pay 500 EUR for a GF1.
IMO the nicest of M4/3 is using pancake and adapted vintage lenses. From this point of view the Olympus approach is better: all those old and cheap fast primes automatically become stabilished lenses. Stabilisation means longer exposure times, this means more light hitting the sensor, this means less noise and that means higher IQ.
Regards
-
Nearly one extra stop in dynamic range, i.e. the GF1 displays twice as much noise in the shadows as the 350D. Not to mention you can get a second hand 350D for 150 EUR, but need to pay 500 EUR for a GF1.
IMO the nicest of M4/3 is using pancake and adapted vintage lenses. From this point of view the Olympus approach is better: all those old and cheap fast primes automatically become stabilished lenses. Stabilisation means longer exposure times, this means more light hitting the sensor, this means less noise and that means higher IQ.
Regards
Ahh yes, the measurements. Of course they do matter, but the measurement that matters most to me is that of the human looking at the end print or image on screen. I identify with the idea that the best camera is the one with you, and I have no hesitation grabbing my Gf1 because it never gets in the way. Anyone looking at the resulting prints to the level where they spot the difference is, in my view, not enjoying the image and the story it tells. They're busy looking at pixels, and not too interested in photography.
I find this piece, written by Michael a while back, interesting:
G10 prints (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml)
Another piece which covers some similar subjects:
Field Notes (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/field-notes.shtml)
I deeply appreciate the deeper and broader capabilities of my larger cameras, and I certainly don't disagree with how important those things can be. My now 'elderly' 5D remains a favourite: the files are simply delicious.
But I also appreciate amazing images shot by small, available film cameras many years ago. My GF1 only needs a better photographer behind it to be able to print to the same quality. I would rather spend time with camera in hand, or on tripod, than pixel-peeping or examining charts.
But then, I am generally recognized as being a bot odd. Oh well.
-
Ahh yes, the measurements. Of course they do matter, but the measurement that matters most to me is that of the human looking at the end print or image on screen.
I never talked about measurements, I talked about noise displayed in the images. Please re-read my post to confirm.
Regards
-
I never talked about measurements, I talked about noise displayed in the images. Please re-read my post to confirm.
Regards
Well, not to be pedantic, but:
Nearly one extra stop in dynamic range
That sounds like a measurement. Of course, you complete by saying:
i.e. the GF1 displays twice as much noise in the shadows as the 350D
And I am sure you are spot on. But, can it be noticed? Does it make a real and practical difference to the output?
I think sometimes yes, sometimes no. To quote more specifically from one of the linked pieces, Michael makes a few points as follows:
Please note that what I'm describing here is really not new when it comes to comparing high-end 35mm DSLRs to medium format systems. We've all done such comparisons for years, and know that the advantages of large sensors and MF systems are best seen in large prints and in critical applications. The only thing that's different now is that instead of comparing an MF system with a DSLR I'm comparing it to a digicam, though a 15 megapixel one to be sure.
Be aware as well that these comparisons fall down when prints over about 13X19" are made. Once the output resolution drops below 200PPI the advantages of a 39 Megapixel sensor over a 15 Megapixels sensor become evident. And, even when smaller prints are made, cropping becomes an issue.
Also, though on prints up to 13X19" differences are almost impossible to see, on-screen at 100% one can fairly easily tell which files are from the G10. There are artifacts visible at the micro detail level and one can easily see other hints of what one is paying for.
But, where the rubber meets the road (or more to the point where the ink hits the paper), in medium sized prints it's been almost impossible for experienced photographers who I've shown these comparison prints to to tell the difference. Scary.
Anyway, innovation and continuous improvement are giving us choice, options and great prices. Happy shooting, I say.
-
Well, not to be pedantic, but:
If you really don't want to be pedantic, just don't make this story last more. I said the 350D sensor displays half the noise the GF1's in the shadows. That means 2 things: the difference in noise is visible, and the 350D has one extra stop in DR. End of the story.
-
If you really don't want to be pedantic, just don't make this story last more. I said the 350D sensor displays half the noise the GF1's in the shadows. That means 2 things: the difference in noise is visible, and the 350D has one extra stop in DR. End of the story.
We seem to be talking past each other. Of course you are correct in the the raw measurement. My assertion is that in real world end-use of the image, it often does not matter. That's my story.
-
There is also a non trivial resolution advantage of the panny sensor over the 350d's. But the DR thing can be a problem.
-
I have loved this wondrous discussion. The real meaning to my personal use is how slow contrast detection cameras are in focusing. To me they are all very similar. I wanted a walk around camera and sold my Gf1 and its lenses and bought a Leica X1 which in my estimation produced better images than the Gf1 Enough said. Neal
-
I have loved this wondrous discussion. The real meaning to my personal use is how slow contrast detection cameras are in focusing. To me they are all very similar. I wanted a walk around camera and sold my Gf1 and its lenses and bought a Leica X1 which in my estimation produced better images than the Gf1 Enough said. Neal
The other day I passed in front of a shop, and there was this X1. Very tiny...superb image quality. I have to admit that I've been tempted.
-
I have loved this wondrous discussion. The real meaning to my personal use is how slow contrast detection cameras are in focusing. To me they are all very similar. I wanted a walk around camera and sold my Gf1 and its lenses and bought a Leica X1 which in my estimation produced better images than the Gf1 Enough said. Neal
I had an opportunity to play with an X1. Outstanding camera, in my view: this one had a great optical VF. My smaller 'quality' camera is currently a GF1, with which I am very happy. I suppose it's true that with interchangeable lenses it offers more flexibility than the X1, but that's not the big point for me. As this is a secondary camera, I just would not be prepared to spend the amount demanded by the X1. Great camera, but it's advantages are simply not worth the cash.
-
.... I made a choice for the Pentax. No regret, can mount without adapter any K mount lenses and as I focus 90% manually, some really serious vintage M primes. IQ in low light is much much better, .....
Pana GH1 would be equal or better than Pentax K7 in low light -- dxomark rates low light performance at 811 for the KX, 772 for the GH1, and 536 for the K7 (identical to the EP1). So the differences claimed in favour of APS-C are exaggerated.
Also, what concerned and disappointed me a lot is that there are not specially silent being mirrorless,
coming....
-
For a thread about the survival of m4/3 I think there has been a lot of emphasis on the pocket rangefinder concept of m4/3 and not enough on the small system concept.
I am in the process of choosing my first digital system camera, with no legacy lens issues to consider (as I am not serious about using my Canon FD lenses with adapters).
I pursued the ultra quality approach (FF) and by the time I pack my fantasy desired kit of one body and an ultrawide zoom, 50 prime, 100 prime or macro, and 70-200/300 zoom plus a flash, the kit weighs about 3.5 to 4.0kg, even using f4 zooms.
I then examined APS-C and found the primes are basically FF units anyway and the zooms also tend to be FF unless I accept kit-zoom quality. The weight and size saving was not what I anticipated.
4/3 was close to APS-C, and hence close to FF! Although some lovely lenses on offer, but no size or weight saving worth bragging about.
m4/3 is completely different, offering a kit based on a GH1 that quite frankly blitzes the three above for size and weight while offering excellent quality and ranging from 14mm to 400mm (equivalent), and a total weight of 1300g as a travel kit is very compelling, as I have enough sore shoulder holiday memories from my SLR kit which is, discouragingly, lighter than any of the above 3 DSLR kits (although I am not saying it is equivalent to them, being 1 body 4 primes and a flash). With the above GH1-based m4/3 system, most body/lens combos weigh 500-750g vs 900-2200g for alternative systems with equivalent fields of view. The GH1 sensor matches the leading APS-C sensors (on average), and one could add one of the RF-like bodies for use as an everyday carry-to-work camera, doubling as a spare body or spouse camera on holiday. Hmm!
For the other makers to seriously compete on the above terms, they need to (a) make a new suite of lightweight compact lenses, and ( b ) release something that competes head-to-head (with no material IQ loss) with their own APS-C lines, which even now depend on FF lenses for much of their high quality range. Sony have started (a) but they have not embarked on ( b ), probably wisely, and Canikon may also be wise.