Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Hackman on July 24, 2013, 12:36:19 pm
-
Hi all
I wish I could have a small camera with small lenses(or even without separate lenses?) with optimal quality. ( I am probably not the only one)
First thing that comes to mind is leica, but after long consideration I feel the price is too high for what I would get out of it.
I kinda lost track of the latest developments in new camera's. (If you do not keep up for half a year your way behind it seems)
Any advice/experiences?
Thanks!
Mark
-
many options, in fact there is a full forum on these, the compact systems camera forum. I have a NEX7 when I want to go light, and can even put my Nikon Zeiss lenses on it. Lots of good things being mentioned of the Fuji Xpro1.
-
I wish I could have a small camera with small lenses (or even without separate lenses?) with optimal quality. ...
Any advice/experiences?
Thanks!
Mark
I am sure you will get many enthusiastic recommendations for various good recent options from Olympus, Fujifilm, Sony, and Nikon in particular, but can you tell us more about your priorities, like what range of focal lengths you are most interested in and whether you have a preference for prime lenses vs zooms, macro lenses, portrait lenses, extreme telephoto reach, etc. ?
P. S. Alternatively: I recommend considering the Olympus OM-D E-M5 with the 12-50mm ("24-100mm FOV equivalent") standard zoom lens, which I greatly enjoy as a lightweight walk-around kit, and there are numerous (mostly small and light) lenses to extent its capabilities, like the 40-150mm (80-300mm equivalent).
-
Hi,
My choices are:
1) Pocketable camera: Sony RX100
2) Walkaround camera: Sony Alpha 77 + 16-80/3.5-4.5 zoom (possible combined with a 70-300/4.5-5.6)
I happen to use Sony, but alternatives are probably as good.
Best regards
Erik Kaffehr
Hi all
I wish I could have a small camera with small lenses(or even without separate lenses?) with optimal quality. ( I am probably not the only one)
First thing that comes to mind is leica, but after long consideration I feel the price is too high for what I would get out of it.
I kinda lost track of the latest developments in new camera's. (If you do not keep up for half a year your way behind it seems)
Any advice/experiences?
Thanks!
Mark
-
How small and how much money do you want to spend?
What will the output be used for - web, smallish prints, larger prints?
Dave S
-
Thanks for the replies sofar!
I now have a canon body 30d, a 10-22mm wide angle , the 70-300 DO and the 24-70 mm 2:8 L lens.
I use this kit mostly on vacation when I like to do trekking and camping in the mountains in a dusty, sometimes cold and/or wet environments, but I also visit cities.
I use the full range of focal lenghts for landscapes , people and inside buildings like monasteries or local homes.
So high ISO is also welcome.
Output is for web and for A3+ prints on my epson r2400
The body is a 30d so that could do with an increase in mp I think although I realize that mp's aren't the holy grail.
Carrying all the stuff around in the mountains is sometimes a bit of a nuisance and I don't like to be such a tourist when I am a tourist. :)
The money to spend? Mmm. Like I said, leica I feel is too expensive for me, but I am prepared to pay for quality..
Aahh the choices we have to make..
Cheers!
-
My small light "scout" camera kit
Sony NEX 7
Sony 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS
Sony 10-18mm f/4 OSS Alpha E-mount Wide-Angle Zoom Lens
All for under $3k, very light and small considering it's 24mp and I have 10-200 zoom range.
-
for your use, the compact teles available for the Oly OM-D (and many other lens choices) and weather sealing make it worth considering. for the size you're printing, and coming from the 30D you should find the IQ satisfactory
-
I now have a canon body 30d, a 10-22mm wide angle , the 70-300 DO and the 24-70 mm 2:8 L lens.
I use this kit mostly on vacation when I like to do trekking and camping in the mountains in a dusty, sometimes cold and/or wet environments, but I also visit cities.
I use the full range of focal lenghts for landscapes , people and inside buildings like monasteries or local homes.
So high ISO is also welcome.
Output is for web and for A3+ prints on my epson r2400
The latest generation of MFT sensors and lenses can probably handle those print sizes well, and of course "looks good on the web" is a piece of cake for any modern system camera.
Here are some options for a kit very roughly matching your current lenses but at lighter weight (in exchange for somewhat lesser low light performance, but still quite decent.) A star marks gear I have actually used and am happy with. Note that the Olympus lens options tend to be smaller, lighter and less bright (smaller maximum aperture sizes) than the Panasonic options. Part of the weight saving is that Olympus puts IS in its bodies, eliminating the bulk of IS in each lens. Panasonic's in-lens IS approach seems better for video, but you do not mention that as a priority.
A few recent Olympus MFT items are "dust and splash proof", like the E-M5 body and 12-50 lens, but if that is a priority, you need to check the details for each lens and body.
- Olympus OM-D E-M5(*) body, or wait for the Panasonic GX7 that is strongly rumored to come next month with built-in tilt-able EVF in a more compact "Leica-like" flat-top format, and on-sensor stabilization for the first time from Panasonic, so that it would work well also with Olympus MFT lenses. With the E-M5, I find up to ISO 800 very satisfactory, and up to ISO 3200 if there is not a wider-than-normal subject brightness range; probably better than the 30D at equally high ISO speed, due to the good sensor design progress made since that camera was released.
- Olympus 12-50/3.5-6.3, 211g (*) if you prefer the flexibility and weight-savings of a 4x zoom with near-macro abilities for a walk-around lens, or Panasonic 12-35/2.8, 305g, if you prefer more speed (and probably better IQ) and a closer match to your 24-70/2.8.
- Olympus 9-18/4-5.6, 155g or Panasonic 7-14/4, 300g for a wide-angle zoom.
- Olympus 40-150/4-5.6, 190g(*) for a very light-weight "80-300mm equivalent" option or Panasonic 45-200/4.5.6, 380g, to roughly match the reach of your 70-300. (Or Panasonic 45-150/4-5.6, 380g; there are almost too many options for MFT lenses!)
P. S. I also enjoy the Olympus 75-300/4.8-6.7 II, 423g, for its combination of extreme telephoto reach ("600mm equivalent") with reasonably light weight, but most people probably do not have much desire to go that long.
-
Wow, thanks for the extensive advice! Really appreciate that.
The Oly seems to be a very interesting option to me. That would really be much more comfortable dragging it up the hill and walking around with it in my pocket in the cities. I think I'll wait for the Panasonic GX7 just to see how it is received by the critics.
So one more question: what is it that keeps you all from switching to this or a comparable system altogether and throwing out all the expensive and heavy stuff? Is it the IQ in the end?
-
- autofocus not fast or accurate enough for sports or wildlife action
- high ISO not as good as ff
- resolution not as good as ff, no long lenses comparable to Canon L glass - sharp prints limited to 13x19
- prefer 3:2 format
- concerns about Olympus service, and in the long term existence (beyond 3-5 year horizon)
-
So one more question: what is it that keeps you all from switching to this or a comparable system altogether and throwing out all the expensive and heavy stuff? Is it the IQ in the end?
Siince your question seems to about the comparison between the new mirorless systems (Olympus/Panasonic Micro Four Thirds, Sony NEX, Nikon One, etc.) and your Canon EF-S gear, let me skip the usual "bigger sensors paired with bigger, heavier lenses are better in low light, and Canon L glass rules" stuff, and tell you what compromises I have to accept in exchange for a smaller, lighter system.
The main ones relate to autofocus, due to it being done on the sensor rather than with separate dedicated phase-detection autofocus sensors fed by the reflex mirror. With the E-M5, this is in general quite fast amd accurate with stationary subjects, but the sensor-based contast detection AF is not good at continuous tracking focus on moving subjects. Some mirrorless systems like Nikon One improve continuous AF by havng some phase-detect AF sensor in the main sensor, and these work well in good light, but their performance falls of in low light. So for moving subjects in low light, SLRs still have a distinct advantage.
A second issue with CD AF is that it focuses at the highest contrast part of each AF zone, whereas PD AF focuses more narrowly on the one point at each AF sensor. This means that CD AF can focus on something like the edge between the bright sky and a branch near the bird you are pointing at, instead of on the bird itself. I handle this with a mix of choosing the smallest AF zone size possible and some manual over-ride, but it is another reason why moving subjects are harder to deal with.
As to lens selection, judge for yourself if your needs are met, but note that when you use SLR lenses mounted with an adaptor, they do not AF well, if at all: my Olympus Four Thirds SLR lenses mounted via an adaptor are great for manual focusing on the E-M5, but very poor for AF usage.
-
I've been searching for a compact system camera to augment (not replace) my big DSLR kit for several years. Started with a Panasonic GF1 with a couple of primes back in 2010 -- a revelation! Excellent image quality in a camera the size of a medium p+s, even at ISO 400 and 800! That 20mm Panny lens is most excellent, too. I am sitting here at my desk looking at an outdoor portrait of my niece shot with that combo, then cropped vertically (so it's about half the original 12 megapixels) and printed to 16x20 inches on my Epson 3800. It's a lovely print and plenty sharp at her eyes. Did I mention that the Panny 20mm is terrific? :)
The GF1 high ISO quality wasn't good, sadly, so I added a Panasonic GH2. That was my primary small kit for a couple of years -- the two Panasonic cameras, and the 14, 20, and 45mm lenses (the Olympus 45/1.8 is also a very good lens.) The GH2 added a beautiful EVF - much better than the clip-on GF1 finder (ugh) - and excellent images to 1600, with very usable images at 3200.
Then I had a chance to handle the new Fuji X series cameras last month. One of my colleagues let me borrow his X Pro 1 for an afternoon, and another let me handle his for most of a week at a conference. I came home and purchased a pair of XE1 bodies and four lenses.
The Fujis are maddeningly quirky little cameras. Totally annoying and frustrating much of the time. But there is something about the images that is just wonderful, and makes me overlook whatever current quirk is driving me mad.
They are designed for slow, careful, deliberate work. At least, I hope they were designed that way, because that's the only way to use them. The autofocus is inclined to take its own sweet time, and the user interface -- which tries to emulate a mid-20th Century rangefinder, with manual aperture and shutter speed dials -- has enough little bugs and odd design choices to last a lifetime.
Now that I've talked you out of looking at them, let me add that the prime lenses are excellent, the zooms are very, very good, and the final image quality can be spectacular. By the end of the year they will have all the lenses you require in their lineup. My total kit weighs about the same as a single pro Canon body with an f/2.8 zoom, and man my shoulders and neck feel the difference. No, the Fujis won't ever replace my big Canon kit at work, but there I'm shooting things that the Fujis aren't designed to do (sports and other fast moving stuff.) They will almost certainly replace my own personal big Canon kit, and I won't miss it at all. For all the things that a traditional rangefinder camera kit can do, like travel and candids and landscape and portraiture, I am finding that the Fujis are a good choice. The more I use them, the faster and more responsive they become.
Good luck in your search. The other advice you have received about the Olympus OM-D is also good, that's a very nice little camera and the prime lenses are fantastic.
-
That 2
I am sitting here at my desk looking at an outdoor portrait of my niece shot with that combo, then cropped vertically (so it's about half the original 12 megapixels) and printed to 16x20 inches on my Epson 3800. It's a lovely print and plenty sharp at her eyes. Did I mention that the Panny 20mm is terrific? :)
This combo has been my everywhere camera for several years. Most happy with the Panny 20mm.
Peter
-
So one more question: what is it that keeps you all from switching to this or a comparable system altogether and throwing out all the expensive and heavy stuff? Is it the IQ in the end?
Who said we haven't? :)
My Pentax DSLR has stayed in it's case since I purchased a Sony NEX7 eighteen months ago. IQ of the Sony is superior. Ditto everything Wayne says.
Bob.
-
I split the difference. I decide on what I most want to photograph that day, and carry one lens on DSLR camera, other lens in pocket or belt pouch.
Personally, there's nothing like an SLR viewfinder for immediacy, clarity, and accuracy. Ergonomics are much better.
I find the LCDs of compacts to be hard to use for hand held shots, end up getting the shakes or going for approximate framing (frame first, then bring camera to face without moving too much). Strapping on a Hoodman helps. My small camera is the Sigma DP2M, I love the files, therefore I adapt to the camera and software.
-
So one more question: what is it that keeps you all from switching to this or a comparable system altogether and throwing out all the expensive and heavy stuff? Is it the IQ in the end?
I had a 20D (should give the same IQ as your 30D) for seven years before moving to a 5D. I hardly use the 5D since buying into Micro Four Thirds with a GF1 and now a G1.
As I had the 20D for so long I have a PC stuffed with images from it and I'm in a good position to judge MFT image quality against the 20D and 5D. IMVHO my first generation MFT kit produces images that at all but the highest ISO's can easily be lost amongst 20D and even 5D images and it's only when the ISO's reach the highest levels that the MFT camera falls behind the 5D (once images are processed to get the best out of them.) My own little tests mirror the results of the tests conducted here with no one being able to reliably or consistently pick MFT images from APS-C from FF...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
I'd love to move fully to a smaller system but the killer for me is low light use as in low light my G1's EVF kicks out so much light even when adjusted for best effect that after taking only one or two shots I find that I'm suffering eye strain as it acts like a torch shining directly into my eye. I've only tried one other CSC, a Nex 6, and that displayed the same torch in the eye effect. Until that can be cured I simply can't use these cameras for low light or night time shooting.
Another worry when moving to a smaller system could be dynamic range but in real world shooting I've never found my G1 that lacking and in fact it's often easier to get a good exposure with my G1 than with my 5D due to the G1's in view histogram.
Looking at your lenses, forgive me for saying that they seem rather ho-hum and I'm pretty sure that a decent CSC coupled with a good lens will be able to match the image quality of your 30D + the lenses you have. In good light and at low to medium ISO's my G1 + a nice lens has no trouble producing images that can be lost amongst 20D and even 5D + good lens images and I'd expect a newer CSC to offer better image quality than my G1.
-
I Had to look up what 'ho hum' means (I'm from The Netherlands so not a native English speaker) , but I learned you mean these lenses are not exactly 'the bees knees' (I know that one)
I'll have to talk to Michael Reichmann about this, he convinced me to buy them based on his reviews :)
I am quite pleased with them actually, especially the compactness of the DO lens with the long focal length, but there is always better stuff I suppose.
I must say I am getting more and more convinced here to seriously consider buying an MFT kit and see from there. Your remarks about the good IQ in combination with the good quality lenses that are available were reassuring.
I think I can sort of conclude that, for what I use my camera for, the things I might be bothered about are
-the Low light performance (but this will probably already outperform my current camera)
-Slow AF can of course be a major nuisance, I certainly have missed great shots as a result of poor AF. Continuous focus is less important for me in my experience.
-I can see the issues with the EVF compared to dslr and that ergonomics also count: it feels better to have a chunky piece of camera in your hands than a very light featherweight. But now I start contradicting myself with my wish for lightweight equipment...
The first two points should be a matter of little time before these can be crossed out.
Well, thank you all again!
-
except for the DO (which is pretty terrible at longer focal lengths) your lenses are as good as the best zooms available for mirrorless (there few really good mirrorless zooms - and they cost as much as ff zooms)
-
except for the DO (which is pretty terrible at longer focal lengths) your lenses are as good as the best zooms available for mirrorless (there few really good mirrorless zooms - and they cost as much as ff zooms)
The best MFT zooms are very probably the latest f2.8's and they seem to be getting very good reviews and they're cheaper than the equiv FF zooms. eg. Canon 24-70mm f2.8 is over £1,100 on the site I just checked whilst the Panasonic 12-35mm is under £900.
MFT primes seem to be rather good too and MFT lenses are in some cases quite a bit sharper than their DSLR counterparts. I'm not sure what's available for Sony Nex of Fuji X series.
For me personally the image quality is there at low to middle ISO's once shots are processed to get the best out of them but I think that only the very latest CSC can compete with FF DSLR's once the ISO rises. Dynamic range seems to be increasing too with the latest MFT offerings having (if you believe the reviews) better DR than any Canon DSLR ever made to date.
All that still leaves the issue of having a torch shining in your eye when shooting in low light though plus tracking of moving subjects isn't as good as a DSLR yet but on the positve side there's none of the front / back focus issues that plague some DSLR and lens combinations.
-
I think I can sort of conclude that, for what I use my camera for, the things I might be bothered about are
-the Low light performance (but this will probably already outperform my current camera)
-Slow AF can of course be a major nuisance, I certainly have missed great shots as a result of poor AF. Continuous focus is less important for me in my experience.
-I can see the issues with the EVF compared to dslr and that ergonomics also count: it feels better to have a chunky piece of camera in your hands than a very light featherweight. But now I start contradicting myself with my wish for lightweight equipment...
As I mainly use legacy primes I only have two Panasonic lenses, 20mm f1.7 and 14-42mm, and neither of them are cutting edge lenses but even so I've never found the focus speed to be a real world issue. They seem to focus every bit as fast as any lens I've used on my 20D and 5D. Personally I doubt that focus speed will be an issue for you especially if continuous focus isn't a high priority for you.
Another point which I forgot to mention...
Many CSC's have a maximum shutter speed of 1/4000 second and if you like shooting with wide aperture lenses you may have to use ND filters. I carry a ND2 and a ND4 with me and I do get annoyed at having to attach a filter to bring my shutter speed below 1/4000 for one shot and then remove it for the next if my shutter speed falls too low or my ISO rises too high.
One or two of the latest models have a max shutter speed of 1/8000 but so far (as far as I know) these models have also had a base ISO higher than 100 or a setting of 100 that's derived from a higher ISO with the disadvantage of reducing dynamic range.
-
Wow, thanks for the extensive advice! Really appreciate that.
The Oly seems to be a very interesting option to me. That would really be much more comfortable dragging it up the hill and walking around with it in my pocket in the cities. I think I'll wait for the Panasonic GX7 just to see how it is received by the critics.
And here it is: very interesting for its spec. sheet wish-list fulfillment, so I am curious to see how Panasonic's new sensor compares to the 16MP sensors in recent Olympus MFT bodies, which made a big jump in performance over previous MFT sensors.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-gx7/panasonic-gx7A.HTM
-
From that review...
"Exposure. There's been an important improvement here, too. Where the GX1 was limited to a fastest shutter speed of 1/4,000 second, the GX7 offers a wide range from 1/8,000 to 60 seconds, plus bulb to a maximum of two minutes."
This important improvement baffles me. Yes, you get 1/8000 sec but the base ISO rises to 200 so what do you gain? You'll still need ND's to shoot with wide apertures in good light just as you would with a camera with a base ISO of 100 and a max shutter speed of 1/4000. Other than when using (or trying to use) wide apertures in good light I can't think of another reason I'd want an increase in available max shutter speed.
I know I'm missing something obvious.
-
Yes, you get 1/8000 sec but the base ISO rises to 200 so what do you gain?
I read in another review that there is the option of a "low" Exposure Index setting of 125. My guess and hope is that the situation is similar to that of the EM5, where the default metering has abundant raw headroom, so that there is significant room for "pulling" to a lower EI.
UPDATE: here is a link to the Imaging Resource spec. list with that EI 125 option, labeled as "extended":
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-gx7/panasonic-gx7DAT.HTM
-
Yes, I believe that's what they do... in camera.
It'd be interesting to compare shots taken at the derived lower ISO value with shots taken at 200 and processed in software on the PC. If it'll shoot RAW at 125. Some cameras only shoot JPEG at the low setting.
Another worry is that the "low" setting may not be included in auto ISO, it isn't on other cameras.
Anyway, personally I'd much rather a truer ISO 100 was available but sadly those days are gone and more and more cameras seem to have a base of 200, I presume it's to improve performance at very high ISO settings. Personally as I like to use wide apertures in good light I'd much rather performance was biased towards the lower sensitivities. Such is life. High ISO settings are the new mega pixel arms race.
-
... more and more cameras seem to have a base of 200, I presume it's to improve performance at very high ISO settings.
More likely it is simply that as light detection efficiency [QE] is improved (with no change in well depth), the base ISO speed naturally rises. That improvement in QE is a benefit in any situation where one needs a higher-than-minimum ISO speed, not just at very high speeds.
Maybe the solution one day will be built-in ND filters, as offered in a few small-sensor compact cameras. At least with "video viewfinders", an ND filter can be used without dimming the VF image, if the VF brightness is suitably adjustable.
-
Whatever the reason for me personally the loss of ISO 100 (and don't even dream of having 50) seems like a backward step.
In the past the lower sensitivities were generally where you found the highest image quality and whilst that may not be true any more I remain to be convinced that raising the base to 200 is in any way good news for anyone wanting to shoot at wider apertures in good light.
MFT, along with other smaller chip systems push you (perhaps) into using wider lenses and if shallow DoF is your aim you're chasing ever wider apertures and thus faster shutter speeds unless you use ND's. I have f1.4 and a f0.95 lenses and without ND's I can't shoot wider than f2.8 at ISO 100.
At 1/8000 sec and ISO 200 any exposure advantage over a camera with a max shutter speed of 1/4000 and a base ISO of 100 is wiped out and that's what bugs me... this is being reported as an "improvement" but in reality I see no advantage and I think we're standing still. IMVHO.
I must admit that ND's are a pet hate of mine at the moment and I can't see the newer generation of cameras helping much, quite the contrary actually and I just can't bring myself to buy a CSC with a base ISO of 200.
Perhaps Panasonic and the others just want us to shoot with a kit lens at f8.
-
I personally have no problem with ND filters...use 'em frequently on the OM-D5.
As has been mentioned already here, the quantum efficiency of sensors has been increasing...and the higher base ISOs in smaller sensor cameras are to an extent a corollary of this. Now with larger photosites you can have a lower base, given the same QE as a sensor with smaller photosites, because each site is capable of capturing more image-forming photons per exposure before saturation.
The ISO 100-200 region is where most current sensors--35mm format, APS-C, m43--with Color Filter Arrays want to be. If you desire a lower base ISO with this tech you need either larger photosites (fewer MPs) or less efficiency.
-Dave-
-
... with larger photosites you can have a lower base, given the same QE as a sensor with smaller photosites, because each site is capable of capturing more image-forming photons per exposure before saturation.
Not really: so long as the well depth stay the same, so that the well capacity in electrons increases in proportion to photo-site area, the same QE will give the same base ISO speed: the increased capacity matched by the increase in incident light.
In practice, base ISO speed does tend to be a bit higher with some smaller format sensors, but this goes with higher QE in smaller sensors. Mu guess is that this is due to the choice of CFA's that are less selective, with a broader spectrum of light detected. That gives greater sensitivity and so less noise, at the cost of worse color accuracy. MF sensors in particular seem to go in the opposite direction, with CFA's that prioritize color accuracy over sensitivity.
-
Hi,
I agree mostly. Base ISO is related to exposure that saturates the sensor. The main reason newer sensors have higher ISO rating is better quantum efficiency. A way of improving QE (for the system as such) is to have more permissive color filters.
My Sony cameras of recent do have ISO 50, and it is a real ISO 50, offering wider DR than ISO 100.
Best regards
Erik
Not really: so long as the well depth stay the same, so that the well capacity in electrons increases in proportion to photo-site area, the same QE will give the same base ISO speed: the increased capacity matched by the increase in incident light.
In practice, base ISO speed does tend to be a bit higher with some smaller format sensors, but this goes with higher QE in smaller sensors. Mu guess is that this is due to the choice of CFA's that are less selective, with a broader spectrum of light detected. That gives greater sensitivity and so less noise, at the cost of worse color accuracy. MF sensors in particular seem to go in the opposite direction, with CFA's that prioritize color accuracy over sensitivity.
-
...the increased capacity matched by the increase in incident light.
Whoops, logic flaw on my part. You are indeed correct.
-Dave-
-
Hi,
I agree mostly. Base ISO is related to exposure that saturates the sensor. The main reason newer sensors have higher ISO rating is better quantum efficiency. A way of improving QE (for the system as such) is to have more permissive color filters.
My Sony cameras of recent do have ISO 50, and it is a real ISO 50, offering wider DR than ISO 100.
Best regards
Erik
If this is true I can see myself keeping my G1 until it dies, although it's interesting to note that a couple of well performing CSC's in the Nex series are a little different.
To me the advantage of CSC's is portability and convenience and for me ND's detract from that.
Where am I going to put my ND's? They can't just go in my bag or pocket, they need to be in a case. How do I fit them when my shutter speed wants to rise above 1/4000 or even 1/8000 with a high base ISO? I'll have to put the camera down, get the filter case out, open it and fit the filter. These are jobs that require two hands. I take my shot and then point my camera in another direction and suddenly my ISO rises to 1600 and I need to get my filter case out, open it, remove the filter from the camera and put it in its case, put the filter case away and then I'm ready to shoot again.
It's a PITA and I begin to realise that a CSC that requires the frequent fitting and removal of ND's is more hassle than my 5D with which I can usually shoot at ISO 100 and f1.4 in good light :(
I bought into MFT because I wanted to downsize but if it's going to be more hassle I might as well go back to my DSLR :(
-
Whatever the reasons for objecting to the increases in base ISO speed due to increases sensitivity (increased quantum efficiency), it should be recognised that it is inevitable, and that no camera maker is going to modify sensor design for a CSC ("live-view only camera") to lower base ISO speed by lowering its sensitivity. One reason is that lowering base ISO speed in that way is exactly equivalent to adding a non-removable ND filter: with the viewfinders relying on the signal from the sensor, lower sensitivity reduces the signal to the VF/LCD as well as for recording images.
So if some people desperately want a CSC with, say, one stop lower base ISO speed, they could get the same result by permanently attaching a one stop ND filter to every lens, and if necessary adjusting the VF/LCD brightness up one stop. More realistically, the small fraction of photographers who like to shoot in bright light at low f-stops will need to find a place for one or two ND filters. I am guessing that most such people already carry polarising filters, in which case it seems not so great an added burden.
-
So if some people desperately want a CSC with, say, one stop lower base ISO speed, they could get the same result by permanently attaching a one stop ND filter to every lens, and if necessary adjusting the VF/LCD brightness up one stop. More realistically, the small fraction of photographers who like to shoot in bright light at low f-stops will need to find a place for one or two ND filters. I am guessing that most such people already carry polarising filters, in which case it seems not so great an added burden.
This issue may push me out of CSC's.
MFT for example has a x2 crop and if you are maintaining FF FoV to get the (much hated topic...) FF equivalent DoF you're pushed into use much wider apertures and that's when the problem hits me. With MFT I'm attempting to shoot at the widest apertures available much more often than I would with my 5D but doing so forces me into using ND's. I do carry ND's with me but as I described above fitting and removing ND's is a two handed job that takes time and for me reduces the portability and unobtrusiveness advantages of CSC significantly.
Whilst leaving a ND on permanently doesn't seem to make the EVF too dark in good light what it does do is push the ISO up and/or the shutter speed down when you point the camera at a darker scene and also having a filter permanently attached can cause issues with reflections when there are bright light sources so there'd still be instances when the ND needed to be removed and placed in it's case.
I know I'll come across as a bit of a killjoy with problems no one else sees as problems but unfortunately for me camera technology just isn't going in the direction I'd want it too and the limitations of CSC's are beginning to irritate me.
-
This issue may push me out of CSC's.
It might legitimately at least push you away from the smaller sensor formats like 4/3”, towards the "biggest sensor that you can afford and carry" (to paraphrase AA), because when shallow DOF in bright light is wanted, a larger sensor has a natural advantage in being able to absord more total light, and thus operate at less high shutter speeds, as indicated by the higher f-stop used to achieve a given DOF.
However, I doubt that the difference between CSC and SLR will help, because I see no hint that any SLR makers (except perhaps medium format back makers) are going to pass on any opportunity to increase sensitivity (quantum efficiency).
-
I had a 20D (should give the same IQ as your 30D) for seven years before moving to a 5D. I hardly use the 5D since buying into Micro Four Thirds with a GF1 and now a G1.
As I had the 20D for so long I have a PC stuffed with images from it and I'm in a good position to judge MFT image quality against the 20D and 5D. IMVHO my first generation MFT kit produces images that at all but the highest ISO's can easily be lost amongst 20D and even 5D images and it's only when the ISO's reach the highest levels that the MFT camera falls behind the 5D (once images are processed to get the best out of them.) My own little tests mirror the results of the tests conducted here with no one being able to reliably or consistently pick MFT images from APS-C from FF...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
I'd love to move fully to a smaller system but the killer for me is low light use as in low light my G1's EVF kicks out so much light even when adjusted for best effect that after taking only one or two shots I find that I'm suffering eye strain as it acts like a torch shining directly into my eye. I've only tried one other CSC, a Nex 6, and that displayed the same torch in the eye effect. Until that can be cured I simply can't use these cameras for low light or night time shooting.
Another worry when moving to a smaller system could be dynamic range but in real world shooting I've never found my G1 that lacking and in fact it's often easier to get a good exposure with my G1 than with my 5D due to the G1's in view histogram.
Looking at your lenses, forgive me for saying that they seem rather ho-hum and I'm pretty sure that a decent CSC coupled with a good lens will be able to match the image quality of your 30D + the lenses you have. In good light and at low to medium ISO's my G1 + a nice lens has no trouble producing images that can be lost amongst 20D and even 5D + good lens images and I'd expect a newer CSC to offer better image quality than my G1.
Followed your link, it's from 2008, that's 5 yrs ago
secondly on my Mac retina it was immediately apparent which file was which. The Canon file is quite dead and lacks significant detail in the leaves... even on a 13" monitor (albeit a good one!)
so a lot has happened since 2008, a lot of new sensors are coming out, monitors are better, lenses are getting better. In summary both ends of the spectrum are improving and there are new designs that will make large format even more narrowly focused (pun intended)
Guarantee that an RX-1 or Sigma DP will blow both those cameras away on IQ... as will several C's, S's or N's
-
The Fuji X-series would be a good ones to look into. The 18-55mm and 55-200mm zooms are very good, there is a good set of primes with more on the way. Lenses and camera are quite light compared to a dslr and a lot smaller to make it easier to carry around. Image quality is quite good. I use my X-Pro1 a lot more than I use my dslr now... easier to carry with me daily.
Alan
-
Like Wayne said(re nex 7). Much lighter than dslr. Only thing that is a trade off is the tele zoom is bulky with respect to the body, but you get good telephoto range. Supposed to be a nex 7 replacement but it appears to continually get set back. All in all a great compact setup.
-
The only way to really sort this out is to do lots of reading, on sites like this, and to go to a well stocked store, if you're fortunate enough to have one in your community, and make some images. Renting is a great way to try out a new system before you spend lots of money.
I am a former large format person who loves his Nikon D800E, but who cannot (will not) carry it hiking. First I had a Panasonic GF-1 but its quality was not quite good enough, then came an Olympus OM-D, which i LOVED because of its size and the in-body stabilization. I could attach an old Leica 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit and had a stabilized, 180mm equivalent f/2.8, just remarkable. And... the image quality seemed quite good... until a friend loaned me his Fuji X E-1 for an afternoon. I was hooked. I now make 13x20 prints from my Fuji, the primes are awesome, the zoom is just great. The only thing I miss about the Olympus is the IBIS. But the high ISO performance of the Fuji is so good, I can just crank up the ISO and shoot away. I do landscape, scenics, nature, macro, some on a small tripod, some hand held. Can you tell I love it? I understand it's thought of as quirky, and I know Lloyd Chambers seems to hate it, but forget all those folks, including me, and try some of these cameras out. Try the new OM-D and the G7, the NEX, whatever. See what works for you. I've told you what works for me in more detail than you probably wanted.
-
Personally I don't pay much attention to 'Net pontificators, whether solid, hollow or Chambered. :D (Sorry, bit of an oblique electric guitar reference there.)
The Fuji X sensor does do well at high gain settings. (Sorry again, amp reference...kinda.) I often shoot in dim light in manual mode...choose a handholdable shutter speed, my desired aperture, ISO 6400 and let the exposure fall where it will. Then I gain it up in post or even in camera. This makes for grainy but crisp results. Nice grain too in monochrome.
Now you have an idea why my username here is what it is. ;)
-Dave-
-
Followed your link, it's from 2008, that's 5 yrs ago
secondly on my Mac retina it was immediately apparent which file was which. The Canon file is quite dead and lacks significant detail in the leaves... even on a 13" monitor (albeit a good one!)
so a lot has happened since 2008, a lot of new sensors are coming out, monitors are better, lenses are getting better. In summary both ends of the spectrum are improving and there are new designs that will make large format even more narrowly focused (pun intended)
Guarantee that an RX-1 or Sigma DP will blow both those cameras away on IQ... as will several C's, S's or N's
My own little tests mirror the results of the tests conducted here with no one being able to reliably or consistently pick MFT images from APS-C from FF...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
Yes the article was written years ago but I remain to be convinced that the situation has changed. In fact I think if anything the gap between smaller than "FF" and FF systems is harder to detect.
My own tests showed that my G1 when fitted with a nice lens produces images that can be lost amongst 5D images with no one being able to tell them apart on screen or in print (A3) better than chance. The G1 images need to be cared for and coaxed a little more but they get there and I fully expect newer CSC to have if anything closed the gap a little to more modern full frame cameras.
However, I can only speak for myself and the people who couldn't tell G1 images from 5D images.
I'm happy with the performance of my quite old G1 at low to middle ISO settings, the only issues that bother me are the light output from the EVF and its limited dynamic range and being forced to use ND's more than I do with my DSLR. If these two issues (EVF and ND's) could be fixed I wouldn't pick up a DSLR again.
-
I personally have no problem with ND filters...use 'em frequently on the OM-D5.
I don't care about the technological reason for the rising base ISO. I only care about the practical implication for me and it's that I have to juggle lens hoods, camera bags, ND cases and ND's. I find it a pain.
I'd have no problem with rising ISO's if the shutter speed increased too. I don't know but I assume that switching to an electronic shutter would enable faster shutter speeds that would enable me to leave the ND's at home... unless I was trying for a lower shutter speed shot.
I thought I'd left ND's behind when I sold my RF's but apparently not. I do realise I'm the only one complaining about this issue and I should just be shooting at f8 all day :-\
-
I don't care about the technological reason for the rising base ISO. I only care about the practical implication for me and it's that I have to juggle lens hoods, camera bags, ND cases and ND's.
There is a partial solution as I said before: permanently attach an ND filter to each lens and use a permanent exposure compensation setting. That will give you less light detected by the sensor, exactly as if (as you seem to want) the sensor were simply less efficient at detecting light in the first place, since lower quantum efficiency is the only thing that gave older sensors a lower base ISO speed.
Actually there is another option with many cameras; Olympus ones in particular: it seems that many cameras with a minimum "ISO dial" setting of 200 actually have a lower base ISO speed (measured by highlight handling), a bit over 100. So their raw files when exposed at EI 200 have about an extra stop of highlight headroom (to the horror of some forum participants.) With such cameras, you can usually safely expose at about EI 100 even if set to the minimum of 200: the in-camera JPEG's will come out too light, but the raw files will be fine with the right processing.
-
OK, my brain isn't working today. Why would you need to set any exposure compensation with a neutral density filter? The in-camera meter will simply see the light as it comes through the filter, no EC needed. With a handheld meter you'd need to adjust, of course.
-
OK, my brain isn't working today. Why would you need to set any exposure compensation with a neutral density filter? The in-camera meter will simply see the light as it comes through the filter, no EC needed. With a handheld meter you'd need to adjust, of course.
You are right; I mixed up the two scenarios: it is to exploit the extra highlight headroom of some cameras that the exposure compensation is needed! I will try to correct my previous post, which makes my "plan A" even simpler.
-
Have had very good experience with a Panasonic Micro 4/3" DMC-GH1. EVF, tiltable LCD and built-in flash are bonuses.
Camera, 14-45mm, 45-200mm and a Leica 45mm macro all for less than a total $1000 used.
They all fit in a 11x7x7" LowePro bag with a total weight of 4-1/2 lbs !!