Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: bcooter on December 19, 2013, 02:06:29 pm
-
The non A7 test.
I want to buy an A7. Since I shoot people and I really like evf cameras, I wanted tracking autofocus, I like the smaller form factor for a lot of our work, when I heard of the FF Sony went straight to the Sony store and shot to a card. Obviously in store photography is difficult and not the way I shoot.
i'll admit since I use the 43 cameras for some of our video and absolutely love the olympus omd e-5 I expected the full frame sony to blow it in the water.
The first results shocked me.
The A7 had double shutter blur and that egg shell effect, but these were jpegs.
So I went back and did it again with raw comparing my em-5. The Sony A7 I kept at 1250 iso and The oly at 1000.
This time shot raws and was positive the Sony would just bury the olympus considering the em-5 it's a previous generation camera.
Came back to the studio and really had nothing to compare. Nearly every frame from the Sony has shutter blur (or some kind of blur) where the Olympus was crazy spot on in focus and sharpness.
Granted the olympus had more noise by about 20%, but pretty noise and I could kill it in software, though I like the look of a little film like grain.
So I tested a third time.
This time found a dealer that had both the new omd em1 and the Sony a7, set them both up as close as possible with low noise reduction and equivalent lenses.
Took a laptop that was calibrated and went in and shot and shot and shot.
Looking at the raws, I would have sworn the the files from the omd were full frame in quality, the A7 being the 43 crop. In fact there was such a difference I was positive we did something wrong, did it again, all at 800 iso.
Bottom line, the Sony files had a global color look where the olympus had specific colors that were obvious.
Putting each camera side by side both with the right angle grip the A7 felt lightweight and flimsy where the olympus felt titanium solid.
If I didn't know better and was asked price, I'd say the Olympus would cost more, but it's the opposite.
But the build quality is the real kicker. I don't shoot PJ work but I'd fell more secure to take the olympus into a war zone than the sony.
Also the Oly track focus was far superior to the Sony and the viewfinder of the olympus if way superior in look and size. On the Sony you see jagged lines on hard subjects that are kind of like looking at tv screen, where the Olympus when adjusted looks like a film.
With the Olympus I never think of it as an electronic viewfinder the Son never let's you forget it's a miniature tv.
Once again the file detail and look was very different. The sony soft and though less noise, had that caking, egg shell look on skintones and the focus would be on then off, then on and this was shooting a stationary subject.
Though the Sony has more resolution the olympus had more real detail.
Also given the fact he focus points on the oly covered more territory and it has more adjustable crops from 4:3 , 2:3 to 16x9.
But the main thing is the file. The olympus has more noise which as I say can be reduced either in post or camera, but with some thoughtful processing it can be set to a film like look. The Oly produces a very non digital looking image.
The color response is what I love. Other than my medium format backs, no smaller format has that separate color look, which allows a lot of adjustable movement in post.
So I bought an em-1 to go with my em-5's and my gh3(s) I use for video.
The olympus isn't perfect and it took me an evening to make adjustments where it would match the em-5 (which I still think has a little better look0, but once set, the Olympus becomes intuitive
I debated on whether to show this image, shot at a sony store with three types of available light sources, LED's from the multitude of tv screens, fluorescence from the counters and tungsten from the the overheads, along with gelled lights everywhere.
This is NOT a portfolio image and I took it in about 4 seconds and I'd show the Sony file but it wouldn't be fare, because the sony has motion blur and regardless of setting has either a global orange color or a corrected neutral with a lot of noise in the blue channel.
Also with this OLY image I purposely crushed the blacks though there is detail in all the shadows if I want to go that way.
This is a very difficult lighting situation for any camera to hit color, because of all the difference sources.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/stony_store_small.jpg) (cropped from a horizontal frame, 1000 iso, no noie reduction, 75mm f2, 200th of a second).
Same image at 100%
http://www.russellrutherford.com/stony_store_large.jpg
Also remember I like to accent grain, not always make it disappear, though i easily could.
Keep in mind I went to buy the Sony, nothing else, never planned on another m43 camera, but I couldn't deny every test.
IMO
BC
PS If I shot only tripod and wanted more resolution at low iso's and use converted canon lenses, I might go with the A7r, but for what I do, the sony just didn't compete with the em-1.
I know most people won't believe it, but my suggestion is to try both, because I think you'll be surprised.
-
Hi BC,
Thanks for sharing!
I really like that image. I don't really always appreciate fashion work, but I like solid real life images.
Best regards
Erik
The non A7 test.
I want to buy an A7. Since I shoot people and I really like evf cameras, I wanted tracking autofocus, I like the smaller form factor for a lot of our work, when I heard of the FF Sony went straight to the Sony store and shot to a card. Obviously in store photography is difficult and not the way I shoot.
i'll admit since I use the 43 cameras for some of our video and absolutely love the olympus omd e-5 I expected the full frame sony to blow it in the water.
The first results shocked me.
The A7 had double shutter blur and that egg shell effect, but these were jpegs.
So I went back and did it again with raw comparing my em-5. The Sony A7 I kept at 1250 iso and The oly at 1000.
This time shot raws and was positive the Sony would just bury the olympus considering the em-5 it's a previous generation camera.
Came back to the studio and really had nothing to compare. Nearly every frame from the Sony has shutter blur (or some kind of blur) where the Olympus was crazy spot on in focus and sharpness.
Granted the olympus had more noise by about 20%, but pretty noise and I could kill it in software, though I like the look of a little film like grain.
So I tested a third time.
This time found a dealer that had both the new omd em1 and the Sony a7, set them both up as close as possible with low noise reduction and equivalent lenses.
Took a laptop that was calibrated and went in and shot and shot and shot.
Looking at the raws, I would have sworn the the files from the omd were full frame in quality, the A7 being the 43 crop. In fact there was such a difference I was positive we did something wrong, did it again, all at 800 iso.
Bottom line, the Sony files had a global color look where the olympus had specific colors that were obvious.
Putting each camera side by side both with the right angle grip the A7 felt lightweight and flimsy where the olympus felt titanium solid.
If I didn't know better and was asked price, I'd say the Olympus would cost more, but it's the opposite.
But the build quality is the real kicker. I don't shoot PJ work but I'd fell more secure to take the olympus into a war zone than the sony.
Also the Oly track focus was far superior to the Sony and the viewfinder of the olympus if way superior in look and size. On the Sony you see jagged lines on hard subjects that are kind of like looking at tv screen, where the Olympus when adjusted looks like a film.
With the Olympus I never think of it as an electronic viewfinder the Son never let's you forget it's a miniature tv.
Once again the file detail and look was very different. The sony soft and though less noise, had that caking, egg shell look on skintones and the focus would be on then off, then on and this was shooting a stationary subject.
Though the Sony has more resolution the olympus had more real detail.
Also given the fact he focus points on the oly covered more territory and it has more adjustable crops from 4:3 , 2:3 to 16x9.
But the main thing is the file. The olympus has more noise which as I say can be reduced either in post or camera, but with some thoughtful processing it can be set to a film like look. The Oly produces a very non digital looking image.
The color response is what I love. Other than my medium format backs, no smaller format has that separate color look, which allows a lot of adjustable movement in post.
So I bought an em-1 to go with my em-5's and my gh3(s) I use for video.
The olympus isn't perfect and it took me an evening to make adjustments where it would match the em-5 (which I still think has a little better look0, but once set, the Olympus becomes intuitive
I debated on whether to show this image, shot at a sony store with three types of available light sources, LED's from the multitude of tv screens, fluorescence from the counters and tungsten from the the overheads, along with gelled lights everywhere.
This is NOT a portfolio image and I took it in about 4 seconds and I'd show the Sony file but it wouldn't be fare, because the sony has motion blur and regardless of setting has either a global orange color or a corrected neutral with a lot of noise in the blue channel.
Also with this OLY image I purposely crushed the blacks though there is detail in all the shadows if I want to go that way.
This is a very difficult lighting situation for any camera to hit color, because of all the difference sources.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/stony_store_small.jpg) (cropped from a horizontal frame.
Same image at 100%
http://www.russellrutherford.com/stony_store_large.jpg
Also remember I like to accent grain, not always make it disappear, though i easily could.
Keep in mind I went to buy the Sony, nothing else, never planned on another m43 camera, but I couldn't deny every test.
IMO
BC
PS If I shot only tripod and wanted more resolution at low iso's and use converted canon lenses, I might go with the A7r, but for what I do, the sony just didn't compete with the em-1.
I know most people won't believe it, but my suggestion is to try both, because I think you'll be surprised.
-
There must be a special place in the bandwidth hell for those who repost the whole OP, just to add a word or two of their own. ;) Especially when it is probably the longest post ever written on LuLa (which, in this case, is a good thing).
To the OP: Hallelujah! Nice to see someone dares to go against spec warriors!
-
There must be a special place in the bandwidth hell for those who repost the whole OP, just to add a word or two of their own. ;) Especially when it is probably the longest post ever written on LuLa (which, in this case, is a good thing).
To the OP: Hallelujah! Nice to see someone dares to go against spec warriors!
Slobodan,
You know I would have loved to do a test in the style I work showing the comparison between the olympus and the sony and I would have put up the Sony files, but they were so far below the em5 and em1 nobody would have believed it. I know I didn't.
Also to be clear, I very much wanted the A7 to work for me. I have some zeiss a mount zooms, so lenses wouldn't be a huge leap and just like everyone, it's hard to get past one camera is full frame, the olympus is 1/2 to 1/4 the sensor size (depending on how you add).
The thing is I can't get past what i see.
I don't mean to diss anyone's purchase either, because if you buy something, like something then no matter what anyone uses then it's right for you.
Buying into 43 is kind of a crap shoot. The micro 43 lenses are good to very good, the primes are fast to semi fast, the zooms are good (not great) but a 2.8 way to slow for this size format.
The one lens they are missing is a fast 100 f 1.8 lens, because i love the Nikon 200 f2. That lens is the only magical modern nikon lens I've used.
Then again everything in the digital age is a crap shoot. If I ever sell my micro 43 system I'd probably lose more than 1/2 price, but since it cost about 1/2 price of any full frame camera that's not really a bad deal.
I'll tell you though, these paid presenters for camera companies send me crazy. I saw a video from B+H where some Sony photographer (what are the called, "explorers of photons?", was saying the A series would be the best PJ camera you could buy, given the fact it's so well built and focuses well.
OK, I guess that person hasn't loaded up an em-1 or em-5 because especially the 1 is built to military quality and it feels as tough as any camera I've held. Also it focuses twice as fast as both Sony A bodies.
I don't expect someone who is paid by Sony to diss the camera they represent, that would be unfair and silly, but also don't throw up a chart and say the Sony is 4 times the quality without shooting both.
Also and probably this is just memories of the past but the olympus feels like it has camera company dna and as i've said the Sony reminds me of I mac dna.
But I'll tell you, I love working with these smaller cameras. When we're on set shooting motion I always have one or two on my shoulder, even when I'm directing and shooting the REDs because all of a sudden I see something and pull out the camera with the lens I want and shoot it. I't like going back in time and I can't imagine having three 1d series on my shoulder.
The form factor of the 43 cameras is just perfect and olympus is virtually the same size as the om film cameras of the past.
Now if olympus made a full frame camera would I buy it . .. first thought is heck yea, but then I think why if I'm getting what i need.
Also if I feel I need more detail I'm planing on buying a leica s2 when I return from this current proejct.
Sorry for the long post again.
BC
-
After much faffing about with "legacy" lenses on m43 (had lotsa fun doing it, though!) the one I actually use regularly is a Zeiss 100/2. A native option, hopefully less bulky & weighty, in the same focal length/speed range would be lovely.
Kinda quiet in this thread, isn't it...
:)
-Dave-
-
Kinda quiet in this thread, isn't it...
:)
-Dave-
Dave,
I think when someone writes what i wrote nobody really believes it, or wants to believe it.
I know in a way I didn't. until you actually put the two cameras side by side.
Actually, that's not true. Pick up an A7 the an em1 and anyone would know the difference in quality, but if you follow the paid bloggers that juke the numbers , or buy into the hype, then well, you make a different call.
What is really hard to get past is the viewfinder. The olympus looks like film and is detailed and solid, where the A7 looks like a jagged tv screen.
Maybe hype rules . . . .
But . . . maybe not. You already hear of eggshell and focus issues on the A7 and especially the R which should produce a much better file than the A7.
Then again I don't make a penny regardless of what anyone buys.
All I care about is the final image and if the camera allows me to get it.
If the olympus has one single issue, it's not the sensor size, or the 43 crop, or the lens options because they're lenses of super expensive to bargain basement available.
The em1 has to be set up exactly for the style of shooting you do. You can make it smooth, global in color, very specific in color, film like noise, or baby butt smooth.
I like the build your own film look and I love the build quality.
I think it's a hell of a camera that's well thought out, compared to the Sony which I feel is a cost savings work in progress.
IMO
BC
-
Dave,
I think when someone writes what i wrote nobody really believes it, or wants to believe it.
I know in a way I didn't. until you actually put the two cameras side by side."
I read this thread and it stopped me from buying the sony a7r. I wasn't sold on it before and after reading this and a few other threads I am off of it. I am a canon shooter and was ready to switch. The Oly sounds great but I need more DR if I am gonna switch platforms. I do like that the Oly feels like color neg to you, thats the look I like. I just need more DR however. Might just get a Nikon and one lens for now until canon makes a move.
-
I read this thread and it stopped me from buying the sony a7r. I wasn't sold on it before and after reading this and a few other threads I am off of it. I am a canon shooter and was ready to switch. The Oly sounds great but I need more DR if I am gonna switch platforms. I do like that the Oly feels like color neg to you, thats the look I like. I just need more DR however. Might just get a Nikon and one lens for now until canon makes a move.
I agree about more DR, actually to me it was a thicker file.
My goal is a neg film look that I can move around "without" that dreaded global color look.
At first with the em-5 I thought it was thin, but it turns out they just came out of the factory over sharp and slightly thin.
With both the em1 and 5 there is a kind of hidden setting curve where you can pull in the highlights, open the shadows and the difference was night and day.
The upside of the omd series is it's configurable. The downside is it's so configurable and to set the menu you need to make notes as you go as it doesn't revert back to the last menu setting, though once set, you never have to go into the menu again as it has a lcd menu that let's you change all the basics very quickly.
Understand I'm not try to sell you or unsell anyone. I'm just saying how much I've learned on these cameras and so far, I'm really surprised in a good way.
BC
P.S. The very strangest thing about these omds are they are very, very, very digital in their set up, but once done, they become an analog camera in their functions.
-
BC, that curve adjustment you mention does make a big difference in JPEG thickness. I discovered it—actually I'd known but forgot about it...so many different things to tweak!—when I began using the E-M5 with the Olympus macro lens to dupe transparencies from my 1980s Middle East travels for online sharing with my family in the UK. I was finding it hard with the dense Kodachromes to keep good highlight tonality while exposing enough to capture the shadows. A little tweak of that curve and there it was: good tonal separation from dark to bright. This let me do all the processing work on my iPad with the JPEGs (quick & fun, in keeping with the intended purpose) rather than sitting down at my desktop and developing RAWs (slower & more work).
With the E-M1 I'm still finding nooks & crannies in the menus that I'd previously missed. Today it was bugging me that half-pressing the shutter button to AF was also locking the exposure value. Of course there's a menu item for that! You can set up the button to behave in a variety of ways for single AF, continuous AF and MF. I shoulda known...now I've got that sorted.
I've attached a pic of me, digitized with the E-M5, sitting atop the Israeli visitor center at Mt. Hermon, in the Golan (occupied territory or part of greater Israel depending on who you ask), in February 1984. Kodachrome 25 in a Canon AE-1 (later stolen...I knew who did it too, the bastards) with a 50/1.4 lens. My Nederlander friend Kees took it early in the morning after a nighttime drive north from the village where we were living & working. Later on we (six of us, including my girlfriend Juliane, from Heidelberg) slid down the mountain on crude snowboards, then drove way down south and spent the late afternoon & early evening soaking in hot springs. Fun times!
I may've posted a version of this here some months ago but that was before getting the tonal stuff sorted. There's spatial detail in the darker areas of my jacket that I've crushed out due to muddiness in the film. This sort of dull shadow tonality was one of the things Velvia was designed to address!
-Dave-
-
BC,
Really appreciate your taking time to post your experience on these cameras. Feedback/findings like this yours much more valuable than a review.
Eric
-
Russell
I always enjoy your ramblings on cameras! :D I shoot a lot of stills and video with my two GH2's and a few mainly prime lenses - including the Voigtlander 25mm .95. often at weddings etc.
Although I still use my 1 DS 3 for portrait shoots etc, I am very interested in the new Olympus EM1. I had a play in a dealer last week and love the feel of the camera, although the staff did not seem really conversant with the set up of the camera and I can see it will take some learning.
I can see it will be good for stills, but how is the video compared to the GH2's. The GH's are great image quality wise, I just find they are not well built and the buttons on the rh side alway seemed to be accidentally pushed in the hustle of a shoot. The video in the Oly has to be good otherwise I probably cannot justify the purchase. I was thinking of the GH3 but prefer the size and build of the EM-1.
Hope you have time to reply.
Jim
-
James, did you check a second body? I'm shooting the A7R myself and loving it, but Paul just tested an A7 and did not find the problems your describing. Wondering if it mite be possible you just had a bad body, or one the settings had been screwed with? I know you well enough to know that you would like my A7R, with the right lenses you would like it VERY much :)
-
James, did you check a second body? I'm shooting the A7R myself and loving it, but Paul just tested an A7 and did not find the problems your describing. Wondering if it mite be possible you just had a bad body, or one the settings had been screwed with? I know you well enough to know that you would like my A7R, with the right lenses you would like it VERY much :)
Revised
Jim,
I'm hesitant to say any camera is better, other than some cameras are better for me.
I use the gh3s for motion imagery and they're great, more than great and well built considering and though we have REDs and use them we just cut 16 videos on a project that totals over 200 minutes and 90% of the footage is gh3. I've treated the gh3's pretty rough and zero glitches but no the olympus doesn't shoot the same video file, though if you know your way around post production it has some benefits.
I think it's 28 mbs vs. the gh3's 72 all intra file and the gh3's video follow focus is crazy good . . . but if you need it, the olympus has the best image stabilization I've seen in video in any camera. It's like a free stedicam. I don't use the em-5 or now the em-1 for motion imagery often, but if you careful, take advantage of the 5 aixs stabilization, it's worth it just for that.
I wouldn't buy this version of the olympus just for video, but I've used it for motion, it worked for what I needed.
Chuck,
Glad you like your R. Never touched an R though tested three A7's at two different stores, all with the same results. I'm not saying the A7 is bad, but just like the above quote the omd is better for me.
The last time I tested the A7 we did all we could to match the em1 in settings which is possible but you can get kind of close.
I personally don't care about mega detail, but do want quick solid focus which the olympus was much better at, a file with distinct colors that aren't global which I also got with the em-1.
But the final decision of the olympus (FOR ME) was it was such a better built camera than the A7, the olympus primes are crazy good and the viewfinder is huge and it goes to different formats from 5:4 to 16x9.
It takes some time to learn, but You can build a film in the viewfinder and it looks like film, with the Sony all I could see is jagged diagonal lines on a TV and it bugged me and looking through a viewfinder and seeing the film you envisioned is a plus.
I understand why people bought the R version because if you want e30 something megapixels that for 2 grand entry fee, that you can stick their canon lenses on, then the A7r is it, but the A7 well . . . I wonder if the people that bought the A7 really, really tested it against the em1?
All I'm saying was don't discount a smaller frame until you've really tried it as a whole package and I'll bet if the Olympus said Full Frame 99% of the buyers wouldn't know the difference.
It's funny, the cinema business doesn't care about mega pixels, they care about look. An Arri which is used for cinema more than the RED has 2500 px across down sampled to around 2k and you've seen hundreds of movies with this camera and btw: a super 35mm 2k format cropped to 2:1 is a small sensor.
I know this will cause an uproar, but I don't see the cinema world running to 5d3's and d800s to shoot the next skyfall and btw: I have 4k RED's I love the look, though RED drives me nuts and I loved the prices compared to the Arri, but if the new panasoic 4k is close to what is reported, I'll bet I have three of those on set instead of the RED's and those will have 43 sensors.
But none of this matters until you see the final image and I'll show something with production values soon.
Then I'll really know how the em-1 works.
IMO
BC
-
Mister X,
Could you explain what these new-fangled things do better than a 1Ds3?
It's not that I doubt anything, I'm just trying to understand what the advantages are for still imagery.
Also, you talk a lot about "setting up the EM-1" but I don't understand any of this because for me all the look is adjusted in the Raw converter.
Edmund
I'm hesitant to say any camera is better, other than some cameras are better for me.
BC
-
One of the advantages of using a good EVF is the ability to fine-tune your color or b&w look and then see it as you're shooting. No need to imagine what it'll later look like...it's already there. That can't help but have an impact on how & what you photograph. With my m43 cameras I shoot RAW + JPEG and am perfectly happy using the JPEGs in all non-printing situations. When I do want to print my aim is to make the processed RAW image look like my JPEG but with the benefits of greater bit depth.
I doubt I'll ever buy another camera that doesn't have a high-quality EVF.
-Dave-
-
Mister X,
Could you explain what these new-fangled things do better than a 1Ds3?
It's not that I doubt anything, I'm just trying to understand what the advantages are for still imagery.
Also, you talk a lot about "setting up the EM-1" but I don't understand any of this because for me all the look is adjusted in the Raw converter.
Edmund
Hi Edmund
Not sure who Mr X is - but as I have the Canon in question I might comment. Size is the most significant point, but of course the M43 can shoot video too - and that through an EVF. Even the Canons that can shoot video need to use the rear LCD to compose on. Purely as a shooting tool the 1DS3 is superb, but it depends on what you're shooting. Quite often I find the EVF is better than an optical finder, especially in low light.
Jim
-
Hi Edmund
Not sure who Mr X is - but as I have the Canon in question I might comment. Size is the most significant point, but of course the M43 can shoot video too - and that through an EVF. Even the Canons that can shoot video need to use the rear LCD to compose on. Purely as a shooting tool the 1DS3 is superb, but it depends on what you're shooting. Quite often I find the EVF is better than an optical finder, especially in low light.
Jim
Jim,
The Mr.X bit is an in joke - think of it as standing in for "The Artist who wishes to be called Cooter".
You and Dave do make some interesting points about the EVF - essentially you use it to preview the shot with the color and curves dialed in - it becomes a creative polaroid. And of course video is not something you will do with a 1Ds3.
However, I am curious about how well the actual *still images* compare between the full frame Canon and its fast lenses and the 43 device. Because after all everyone was in love with the *idea* of all those 36 luscious megapixels of Sony sensor, and now suddenly they are talking not file quality but preview convenience.
And BTW, I don't say the 1Ds3 is a marvel, it's just the "old" 35mm state of the art, and Cooter and Associates used to shoot it.
Edmund
-
Mister X,
Could you explain what these new-fangled things do better than a 1Ds3?
It's not that I doubt anything, I'm just trying to understand what the advantages are for still imagery.
Also, you talk a lot about "setting up the EM-1" but I don't understand any of this because for me all the look is adjusted in the Raw converter.
Edmund
Mr E.,
Ever watch someone shoot a dslr and I don't care if it's sports, journalism, editorial, advertising, or a Christmas party.
They take a snap, pull the camera down and look at the lcd, or in studio run over to the monitor.
Make some adjustments, do it again, make some adjustments do it again and if it's for commerce usually tell the client, I'll bring down the red in the faces, give it a cooler tint, change the contrast a little smoother and . . . . well you get the idea.
So the difference. If you learn a the olympus, as Dave says you can tune it until it almost is exactly what your going to deliver. Sure we'll work it in post, get it more refined, but basically what you show is what your going to shoot and yes it makes a nice difference to see the image as you like, as you shoot.
Don't take your eye from the viewfinder and it's frozen (if you want) you the photographer sees it and you can make an instant change.
Yes I can do this in C-1 or running a hot folder to lightroom with a Canon, Nikon or Phase and sometimes that's preferable, but it's not mandatory.
Also as mentioned, you can focus in low light (if you so chose) in ways an optical viewfinder didn't.
Tonight I was shooting with an old voightlander 35 1.2 on Oxford street, just doing a little book for my family. It was fun and easy, you look through the viewfinder make your adjustments, and it's so close to the look you want to portray it's very cool. I keep about 3 presets of color and tone and just switch films as I go.
As far as size, well I'm not usually a walk around photographer so a big camera isn't an issue, except now we shoot mostly motion imagery and I can throw two of those cameras on my shoulder, they don't get in the way and I can just walk over and shoot, choosing the body and lens I want, with very little break in the action.
Also since I shoot motion I don't think in 35mm full frame lenses, I think cinema focal lengths and m43 to super 35 isn't that big of a leap, and since some of my motion cameras are m43 there is no leap at all, unless I want it to be.
Tonight as I mentioned I was just fooling around for fun, manually focusing the 35 1.2 I played around with tracking focus and the viewfinder of the oly is so large it's easy, you can see exactly what's in focus. That was fun and allows me to shoot not stopping to change a focal point.
Try to focus a modern dslr manually and hit it 90% of the time.
The main thing though is I think the olympus file looks different. I showed the c--p snapshot I did under mixed light, cropped vertical from a horizontal http://www.russellrutherford.com/stony_store_large.jpg and posted may be too noisy for some, or not smooth enough for someone that does product but for me, it's perfect for a film look. I think it looks different, I like it.
But will those m43's do everything......NO and I wouldn't use them for everything. A cosmetic Ad in studio of course not, a series of tethering 20 setups nope, but for a lot of work we're doing yes.
And of course there is one more point. As I move up field with motion and stills and change these things out every 18months how much money are you going to lose? $600, $800. Try selling a 1dx in 18months. Your talking $3,000, x 2 and no I don't have to change a camera every 18 months, but when something comes out like a panasonic 4k I will make the change, so will many others.
But as I say what I buy I buy for me and I'm always open to changing my mind, though the point I was making is Olympus came out with the em-1 sold a bunch of them and everybody loved it until Sony poped out a full frame look alike and the world stopped, mostly because of 30 something megapixels.
I also thought s__t I guess I better try it and I somewhat did and still bought an em-1 because I think it's a better camera, but I've never said I was mentally stable.
IMO
Mr. X.
-
J,
It's clear there's real ergonomic novelty happening here.
I guess the next step is going to be better controls for whipping up a "film" on site. Or maybe a huge built-in catalog of images which have been shot with various styles, and you just run a thumbwheel through them to choose your base look ...
In a way this is funny because consumer cams have been doing rear-screen styles for ages, and we never noticed. And of course there's Instagram :)
I leaf through the trendy photo magazines in my local newskiosk, and the quality of the imagery is dirt, but the pix are all totally wacky. Maybe 43 is the video equivalent of the electric guitar for pop music - the right tool for the times.
What you say about focus is interesting. Maybe I should really try out an EM-5 or EM1.
IT DOES MAKE ME SAD that "good color" is now going to be reserved for medical journals, cosmetic ads, portraits of rosy cheeked babies, and nature and porn films.
Edmund
Mr E.,
Ever watch someone shoot a dslr and I don't care if it's sports, journalism, editorial, advertising, or a Christmas party.
They take a snap, pull the camera down and look at the lcd, or in studio run over to the monitor.
Make some adjustments, do it again, make some adjustments do it again and if it's for commerce usually tell the client, I'll bring down the red in the faces, give it a cooler tint, change the contrast a little smoother and . . . . well you get the idea.
So the difference. If you learn a the olympus, as Dave says you can tune it until it almost is exactly what your going to deliver. Sure we'll work it in post, get it more refined, but basically what you show is what your going to shoot and yes it makes a nice difference to see the image as you like, as you shoot.
Don't take your eye from the viewfinder and it's frozen (if you want) you the photographer sees it and you can make an instant change.
Yes I can do this in C-1 or running a hot folder to lightroom with a Canon, Nikon or Phase and sometimes that's preferable, but it's not mandatory.
Also as mentioned, you can focus in low light (if you so chose) in ways an optical viewfinder didn't.
Tonight I was shooting with an old voightlander 35 1.2 on Oxford street, just doing a little book for my family. It was fun and easy, you look through the viewfinder make your adjustments, and it's so close to the look you want to portray it's very cool. I keep about 3 presets of color and tone and just switch films as I go.
As far as size, well I'm not usually a walk around photographer so a big camera isn't an issue, except now we shoot mostly motion imagery and I can throw two of those cameras on my shoulder, they don't get in the way and I can just walk over and shoot, choosing the body and lens I want, with very little break in the action.
Also since I shoot motion I don't think in 35mm full frame lenses, I think cinema focal lengths and m43 to super 35 isn't that big of a leap, and since some of my motion cameras are m43 there is no leap at all, unless I want it to be.
Tonight as I mentioned I was just fooling around for fun, manually focusing the 35 1.2 I played around with tracking focus and the viewfinder of the oly is so large it's easy, you can see exactly what's in focus. That was fun and allows me to shoot not stopping to change a focal point.
Try to focus a modern dslr manually and hit it 90% of the time.
The main thing though is I think the olympus file looks different. I showed the c--p snapshot I did under mixed light, cropped vertical from a horizontal http://www.russellrutherford.com/stony_store_large.jpg and posted may be too noisy for some, or not smooth enough for someone that does product but for me, it's perfect for a film look. I think it looks different, I like it.
But will those m43's do everything......NO and I wouldn't use them for everything. A cosmetic Ad in studio of course not, a series of tethering 20 setups nope, but for a lot of work we're doing yes.
And of course there is one more point. As I move up field with motion and stills and change these things out every 18months how much money are you going to lose? $600, $800. Try selling a 1dx in 18months. Your talking $3,000, x 2 and no I don't have to change a camera every 18 months, but when something comes out like a panasonic 4k I will make the change, so will many others.
But as I say what I buy I buy for me and I'm always open to changing my mind.
IMO
Mr. X.
-
J,
IT DOES MAKE ME SAD that "good color" is now going to be reserved for medical journals, cosmetic ads, portraits of rosy cheeked babies, and nature and porn films.
Edmund
Edmund,
No, no.
Not crappy color, color of the moment, color as guide like a instant film (and not an instigram film).
I've always said how cool would it be to have knobs on your camera and make the film you wanted in the camera. Now we can do it and see it as we frame and shoot.
This doesn't make it easier or take the skill away, this allows the photographer to see design what they're shooting in regards color, tone, composition and lens.
Isn't that total control?
The 1ds3 you use shoots pretty color, but it's global and it's limited until you go through layers and layers of post at least with the gazzilion images I shot with those cameras.
With the em-1 you set your look and use the jpeg as your guide.
To me this is an amazing plus, but not crappy color, but a specific film, just the film you can see until your ready to present.
Everybody that doesn't like evfs finds fault and I'm saying with the em1, there are four advantages. The ability to see "your" film look, adjustable formats from 4:3 to 16:9, a refresh rate that has less blackout than and ovf and the ability to view a huge viewfinder and manually focus a lens and in light and dark even without the magnifying setting.
When was the last time we could do that?
This is as Nikon says, puts the photograph back in the hands of the photographer, literally.
In regards to pixels, frame size, whatever . . . well I've explained it and except for two lenses I'd like in the 43 system most is more than covered, from f.95 manually focus, to 400mm equivalent primes.
The downside is small, but no I don't see this camera as good enough, just the opposite and when I combine the olympus with the pana gh3's, there is little you can't do in modern imaging at bargain prices compared to where we were just a few years ago.
Once again, I really am not dissing the Sony A7 (know nothing about the R), but I'll bet few people tested the em1 next to the A7, from shoot to final post production.
If they did I bet they'd see things differently.
IMO
BC
P.S. I'll agree 50% that some editorial and commercial photography is c__p and the new economic new has knocked the poot out of production, but I also see some beautiful imagery and the thing I like is it's not all normal or safe, or just post production effects.
There is a new look of believable but unique, a combination of planned real and I like it, in fact I like it a lot.
When life throws you lemons, make lemonade. Or as you would say a Lemon Pressee.
-
Here is a link related to current discussion on the color virtues of Olympus EM-1:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/12/20/daily-inspiration-478-by-luke-carl-thompson/
To my eye the skin tones look "real" and flattering; so much so that I am about to call B&H and place an order.
For those with experience, how does EM-1 do with studio strobe for beauty and portrait work?
Thank you,
Richard
-
Here is a link related to current discussion on the color virtues of Olympus EM-1:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/12/20/daily-inspiration-478-by-luke-carl-thompson/
To my eye the skin tones look "real" and flattering; so much so that I am about to call B&H and place an order.
For those with experience, how does EM-1 do with studio strobe for beauty and portrait work?
Thank you,
Richard
Studio flash, depending on flash, I use profoto, but good. Mixed light great, tungsten good.
But learn your settings and yes it will take a few days as the menu is deep.
For base I on the em1 with the oly primes, especially the 75, I use sat. 0 to +1, Sharpness 0 to -1, noise reduction zero (up to 1000 iso), graduation low key and set the curves to open the shadows and hold the highlights, underexpose 1/3 stop at most and calibrate this with your evf and computer so they match and adjust for the -1/3 stop.
With the em-5 (which shoots a 10% better file) picture mode natural, sat -1, sharpness -1, noise reduction non, graduation low key, contrast -2, and set the curves as above.
Also set the evf in color and tone to match your computer and buried in the menu is a color wheel to set the look, do some adjustments on white balance and a set of warm cards for video are a good way to set a different wb look.
As will all digital a uv filter helps a lot for flash.
BC
P.S.
With lenses the oly primes are ultra sharp and crisp (think zeiss), the panasonic constant zooms are sharp with a softer roll off, (the pana Leica 35 is sharp with a slight smoothness) if you use leica m mount lenses get a very good adapter like the metabones or a few others, but don't scrimp on adapters.
The oly standard 43 lenses are beautiful, but very expensive for this format and only work well with the em1.
-
BC,
Thank you so much for all the information you provided ... much more than I asked for. Hope to put it to use real soon.
All the Best,
Richard
-
James,
Looks like the change due to the electronics vs. film is finally impacting mainstream creative convention.
When I lived in Japan they had Audrey Hepburn all over the billboards, bought the erights and CGI'ed her in.
She made a very successful model.
A friend in germany closed his revolving platform car studio -
All the car firms now make their ads with CGI. Which even allows them to "photograph" white cars easily.
I guess a camera could do a 3D scan of talent, and then post it into every scene.
You'd just have to twiddle some buttons for expression and add ... the clothes :)
Your average iPhone has more horsepower than a Cray supercomputer when I was a student -
It's not a film world anymore.
Plenty of lemons to squeeze and lemonade still waiting to be drunk ;)
Edmund
Edmund,
No, no.
Not crappy color, color of the moment, color as guide like a instant film (and not an instigram film).
I've always said how cool would it be to have knobs on your camera and make the film you wanted in the camera. Now we can do it and see it as we frame and shoot.
This doesn't make it easier or take the skill away, this allows the photographer to see design what they're shooting in regards color, tone, composition and lens.
Isn't that total control?
The 1ds3 you use shoots pretty color, but it's global and it's limited until you go through layers and layers of post at least with the gazzilion images I shot with those cameras.
With the em-1 you set your look and use the jpeg as your guide.
To me this is an amazing plus, but not crappy color, but a specific film, just the film you can see until your ready to present.
Everybody that doesn't like evfs finds fault and I'm saying with the em1, there are four advantages. The ability to see "your" film look, adjustable formats from 4:3 to 16:9, a refresh rate that has less blackout than and ovf and the ability to view a huge viewfinder and manually focus a lens and in light and dark even without the magnifying setting.
When was the last time we could do that?
This is as Nikon says, puts the photograph back in the hands of the photographer, literally.
In regards to pixels, frame size, whatever . . . well I've explained it and except for two lenses I'd like in the 43 system most is more than covered, from f.95 manually focus, to 400mm equivalent primes.
The downside is small, but no I don't see this camera as good enough, just the opposite and when I combine the olympus with the pana gh3's, there is little you can't do in modern imaging at bargain prices compared to where we were just a few years ago.
Once again, I really am not dissing the Sony A7 (know nothing about the R), but I'll bet few people tested the em1 next to the A7, from shoot to final post production.
If they did I bet they'd see things differently.
IMO
BC
P.S. I'll agree 50% that some editorial and commercial photography is c__p and the new economic new has knocked the poot out of production, but I also see some beautiful imagery and the thing I like is it's not all normal or safe, or just post production effects.
There is a new look of believable but unique, a combination of planned real and I like it, in fact I like it a lot.
When life throws you lemons, make lemonade. Or as you would say a Lemon Pressee.
-
Jim,
The Mr.X bit is an in joke - think of it as standing in for "The Artist who wishes to be called Cooter".
You and Dave do make some interesting points about the EVF - essentially you use it to preview the shot with the color and curves dialed in - it becomes a creative polaroid. And of course video is not something you will do with a 1Ds3.
However, I am curious about how well the actual *still images* compare between the full frame Canon and its fast lenses and the 43 device. Because after all everyone was in love with the *idea* of all those 36 luscious megapixels of Sony sensor, and now suddenly they are talking not file quality but preview convenience.
And BTW, I don't say the 1Ds3 is a marvel, it's just the "old" 35mm state of the art, and Cooter and Associates used to shoot it.
Edmund
Hi Edmund
forgetting the video for a moment, I tend to shoot my GH2's in raw capture and often use them alongside my 1Ds3, therefore I prefer to do my colour balance etc in Lightroom after the shoot so that I can get an overall look to the whole set (this mainly for weddings). In general use the M43 pictures are excellent - I could post a few here if you like. Are they equal to the Canon files with the best Canon lenses? No. But they are very good. Remember that my Panasonics are three years old so not the equal of the cameras under discussion. The dynamic range in my cameras is not as good as the Canon. The only reason I have not yet upgraded to the GH3 is money. However I much prefer the feel and idea of the EM-1 to the GH3, as long as the video is adequate - which according to Cooter the GH still trumps the Oly. To be fair I don't think the Olympus is targeted at video in the way the Panasonic is.
Its all compromises with cameras isn't it. IF you like manual focus lenses, the M43 are way ahead of the Canon (excluding live view of course). Low light seeing and manual focussing particularly are a joy!
This year I spent so much time shooting with EVF that I suddenly realised my brain and momentarily forgotten how to 'see' with the optical finder in the Canon. I forgot to mentally adjust exposure because in the EVF it is shown. I use the GH2 with the rear LCD folded closed and the instant review in the EVF set to 'off'. Then, if I need to review a picture I just press the review button and the picture appears in the EVF - without taking the camera away from my eye. I can be talking to the subject with my left eye while reviewing a picture with my right. The continuity is not broken.
With M43 I love the small size, I love the tiny compact lenses, and I love the discreetness - not toting a massive camera around and being able to blend into the background. I do not like the ergonomics an tiny buttons on the GH2, I am always accidentally pressing something - it is just not a professional tool. Which is why I am very tempted by the new Olympus.
I have to admit that I do still love my 1Ds3. The picture quality of course is superb. But mostly as a tool it just works. After six years and many hundreds of thousands of pictures it feels like an extension of my brain (except after using the M43 and forgetting how to use the viewfinder!). It is impossible to accidentally press anything, and I can use it instinctively. Which is why for shooting location portraits it is still my favourite - paired with either an 85mm 1.8, or Zeiss 50mm f2. But I would love to have a similar camera in the size of the Olympus - I can accept the EVF - in fact I embrace the EVF.
Finally, and again forgetting video, I do prefer the experience of seeing through an optical finder. But the advantages of the EVF are so great I honestly cannot see many manufacturers not going over to it very soon. Why would you want one of the bottom-end Canons with its tiny OVF when you could have a big bright EVF with all it's advantages.
I would like a 1Dx too though! ;D
Jim
-
I have to admit that I do still love my 1Ds3. The picture quality of course is superb. But mostly as a tool it just works. After six years and many hundreds of thousands of pictures it feels like an extension of my brain (except after using the M43 and forgetting how to use the viewfinder!). It is impossible to accidentally press anything, and I can use it instinctively. Which is why for shooting location portraits it is still my favourite - paired with either an 85mm 1.8, or Zeiss 50mm f2. But I would love to have a similar camera in the size of the Olympus - I can accept the EVF - in fact I embrace the EVF.
Jim
jim the gh3 though kind of a mini 5d2 is more intuitive to me than a 1d series and I've owned every 1d and 1ds/x series made. If only it shot the stills of the olympus, but if only the olympus shot the video of the gh3. At least they use the same lens mount.
The Olympus, give yourself 4 days to figure it out, because out of the can it's not perfect the menu is so deep and doesn't return to the last setting, that you need a note pad and patience.
Once set yo've built your own fillm(s).
Edmund,
Your spiking the Lemonade again or just doing the Edumund causes trouble deal. I never know with your French guys.
Your talking about a camera that turns everyone into a human blade runner clone and I'm talking about a camera that I can make an analog film look.
Lot of difference in the intent.
IMO
BC
-
jim the gh3 though kind of a mini 5d2 is more intuitive to me than a 1d series and I've owned every 1d and 1ds/x series made. If only it shot the stills of the olympus, but if only the olympus shot the video of the gh3. At least they use the same lens mount.
Interesting - I obviously need lots of money - and time to learn new cameras! Actually work is picking up quite well at the moment - I've only had two whole days off in two months, though it is our busy period, so a new camera/s is on the cards. Sounds like a GH3 on one shoulder and a EM-1 on the other - but then that is a good way to confuse the brain.
BC - I am not a demanding video user - that is I am quite low on the learning scale compared to my skill in stills. While the GH3 is of course better than an EM for video, is the EM in any way comparable to the GH2. I'm wondering if I would take a big hit on video quality by going the Olympus route. I know in an ideal world I would get both to try for a week. However it is my experience that becoming really proficient with a camera can often outweigh any technical shortcomings it has. One particular thing a GH can do is shoot a RAW still part way through a video clip - can the Olympus do that as far as you know. It is a feature I use quite often at weddings.
I want to take the plunge this year and leave the Canon at home for weddings - and although the GH2 is fine for 80% I think the Canon is still needed with my current set-up. At the moment I am often slinging three cameras round my neck - GH2 with 25mm Nokton, GH2 with 14mm pancake, and 1Ds3 with 85mm. I'm getting older too! ;D
Jim
-
Edmund,
Your spiking the Lemonade again or just doing the Edumund causes trouble deal. I never know with your French guys.
Your talking about a camera that turns everyone into a human blade runner clone and I'm talking about a camera that I can make an analog film look.
Lot of difference in the intent.
IMO
BC
James,
I think it's that time of the year again when it's allowable to both post and drink - so I've just raised a glass of port wine to your health ;)
You are right - I want a camera that can mine bitcoin and make coffee, and whisper sweet nothings to make the model smile :)
The look - I want to do that meself, new every time.
Edmund
-
James,
I think it's that time of the year again when it's allowable to both post and drink - so I've just raised a glass of port wine to your health ;)
You are right - I want a camera that can mine bitcoin and make coffee, and whisper sweet nothings to make the model smile :)
The look - I want to do that meself, new every time.
Edmund
Edmund,
You a good cat.
Have a great Christmas
BC
-
Hi BC,
Thought this might interest you: http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/my-first-result-with-a7r_topic102199_page1.html
This is closer to your style of shooting.
I see no evidence of shutter blur and do see some decent tones.
Perhaps you could give the A7R a try some time?
-
Hi BC,
Thought this might interest you: http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/my-first-result-with-a7r_topic102199_page1.html
This is closer to your style of shooting.
I see no evidence of shutter blur and do see some decent tones.
Perhaps you could give the A7R a try some time?
That snap is with fast duration flash, s__t you can shoot it at 1/2 a second and slap the lens and it would be sharp.
Try it at 100th of a second with continuous lights, or put a fifty on at a 60th hand held, the A7 becomes a different camera.
it's not just the slap, you can use a tripod, it's just the package. The Sony viewfinder is very tv looking with jagged lines and some other strangeness like slower focus in stills, no touch screen autofocus in motion and right now to get to fast lenses you've gotta go to A mounts which somewhat negates the size factor and to a lot of extent the cost factor.
It's not the A7 that is that far off, it's just doesn't give me anything I dont have and unless Sony release some kind of new roadmap with e mount 4k video, fast lenses.
Basically, it's hard to fathom that a 43 sensor will perform like it does, but I use it, it does, it offers cross use from motion to stills and the lens set is very, very good.
I doubt seriously if the way the A7 is positioned it will be really tested against an olympus or a panasonic.
It may take two makers,but combining panasonic's video and olympus stills there is not a lot left to be desired for a hand camera, at least in what I shoot.
I still have and use the Canons, my medium format cameras, the RED's so I'm covered on the large end, but the small cameras have a lot of use in small spaces, fast production.
The one thing that some people miss when comparing all these little cameras is the 43 system has a 4:3 format which is great in vertical, interesting in horizontal, but I'm not selling cameras, just using them.
One thing about the A7, the shutter slap (should there be any slap on a non mirror camera?) is not the end of the world, but until you've seen that crazy olympus stabilization that will let you shoot a static subject, at 1/6 th of a second you won't believe it. (If I could only get talent to hold still st a/6th of a second).
I really think it's best if people decide for themselves. It takes a lot of set up time with these electronic cameras, especially find the sweet spot on iso and noise/sharpness but once you find it, it's very good.
Good enough that I can use them for complete production and not worry about the larger cameras if I so chose.
IMO
BC
P.S. After a lot of frames, the olympus em-5 at 1000 iso is more pleasing to me than the em-1, though the em-1 is a slightly better camera, especially for track focus. For video the gh3 is head and shoulders above anything under $10,000.
-
Ah OK, I didn't know you worked with continuous lights too. I work pretty much with only strobes, so that didn't cross my mind.
I am planning to rent one to test out during a studio shoot I have early next year. Let's see how it goes.
-
If your going to test the A7 with a thought of buying, do yourself a favor and try the em1.
Michael has a good write up about it and I agree with most of what he says, especially in usability and build quality.
Though the setup is electronic heavy in set up (don't expect to turn it on and shoot the best or prettiest file ever).
Even if the Sony A7 shot the same quality file (which I don't believe it did in my tests), if you shoot the em-1, then then sony, then the em-1 and asked the price, you'd expect the em-1 to costs more rather than less.
You won't understand the build quality until you compare the feel.
Michael made a point of saying the camera is built by people who understand photography and I agree. It's the most personally customizable camera I've ever used and it's cool to look at an lcd and see the film you expect to see, rather than something you know your going to have to mess with in post to get to a base look.
The only thing I don't like is olympus needs a very fast 100mm lens I'd say f2 at the least. They do have a standard 43 lens that's a 150mm f2 and it focuses well with the em-1 but not to the level of the micro 43 lenses.
The one other thing I don't think Michael mentioned was how you can autofocus it, because the viewfinder is so large and detailed. I'll throw on a Leica or a voght and hit focus even on moving subject most of the time. I've never been able to do that with a digital dslr.
The one leap is to get your head out of the frame size. I know it makes no sense given our constant market barrage of larger sensor sizes, more megapixels, but those mean nothing if the image isn't sharp, or the camera keeps you from getting the shot.
I think it's the most underrated camera sold and if it only tethered I could carry a lot less equipment.
My only other suggestion is to stay with primes. Olympus 12, 17, 47 and 75 are very good, the pana lecia 25 great with a new 50mm 1.2 leica on the way.
The zooms are good, but the primes have a different character.
IMO
BC
-
If your going to test the A7 with a thought of buying, do yourself a favor and try the em1. Michael has a good write up about it and I agree with most of what he says, especially in usability and build quality...
Good recommendations and pragmatic words of advice, but there is a BUT
BC speaks from the viewpoint of someone who, by his own admission, now concentrates and has moved towards motion as a distinguishing quality of his business - autofocus, tracking, stabilisation, colour, in-camera corrections and extensability are all important. M43 sensor size is little different from the sensors he's using for motion.
For someone who, like myself, does mainly B&W, stills only, prefers manual focus, has a host of top-grade legacy glass (that he's not willing to discard) and who values focus peaking and tethering the way BC values AF speed and tracking there is a 'dilemma'.
For reasons I still can't fathom, m43's don't suit 'adapted' lenses. I haven't tested M-glass on the OM-1 (BC has) but did on the Panasonic GH2. The results weren't even in the same ball park.
I suspect that all non-native lenses, either primes or zooms, will give poor(er) results on bodies that use an AA filter. It's not just ray angle, exit pupils et al. It's probably what the OLPF does. Cameras that are are OLPF free have consistently given better results – there are reports both on this site and elsewhere that QED this**. Doesn't mean that there won't be issues with corner resolution, smearing etc – there may well be. It's a question of degree. I suspect this is the main difference between the m43 OMs , Panasonics et al v the Fuji (and other) AA-less CSC's - without discussing high ISO and file quality.
The problem investing today in m43, is twofold. The lenses are good, very good. They're also expensive. But you're buying and committing to that format for the foreseeable future. The lenses are not adaptable, at least not to APS-C and FF. That's an expensive gamble - 35mm (ff) lenses and up, with the arrival of the mirrorless, game changing CSC's - potentially are.
(note to BC : would you be as keen on a Leica S2 if your legacy glass wasn't adaptable to it ?)
I have tested Leica M-glass on the Fuji x-trans, and the results were stellar. I've also used an 85/1.4 with the Metabones SpeedBooster for a quick test. With focus peaking, I nailed focus on the eyes from 6ft away in an instant - there was minimal dof. I've never done that before.
Regarding build quality, there is a big difference between the A7 and the A7r. File quality - I suspect the 'r' version is similar to the D800e, given that they have the same sensor, although different electronics and despite Sony's suspect RAW compression.
I don't know if the OM has focus peaking, but I tried the SONY for a few seconds and it's without doubt the best focus peaking implementation I've yet seen. Enough to persuade me to order the camera, virtually unseen.
Yes, the shutter shake issue is a pain. But to put it in perspective, it's still less than the D800 and I hope that just like Canon, with the 5D's, the initial problems will be resolved with a firmware fix.
So in favour of the SONY, I would suggest that anyone who values 36MP, IQ, focus peaking, (tethering) and future interoperability – there's still a decision to be made.
(And no, I haven't made it yet - the box is still unopened ..)
–
**
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a_matter_of_character.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a7r_m_lens_report.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/m_waiting.shtml
-
Interesting article in the NYT today ..
Panasonic, like peers Fujifilm Holdings and Olympus Corp, has been losing money on its cameras
[..]
A 40 percent drop in Panasonic's overall camera sales in April-September left the imaging division vulnerable as the company's mid-term plan to March 2016 demands unprofitable businesses turn themselves around or face the axe. "If you look mid-to-long term, digital camera makers are slipping and the market is becoming an oligopoly," said Credit Suisse imaging analyst Yu Yoshida.
Panasonic held 3.1 percent of the camera market in July-September, down from 3.8 percent a year earlier, according to IDC. Canon Inc, Nikon Corp and Sony Corp controlled over 60 percent between them. "Only those who have a strong brand and are competitive on price will last - and only Canon, Nikon and Sony fulfil that criteria," added Yoshida.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2013/12/29/business/29reuters-japan-cameras.html?_r=0
-
For reasons I still can't fathom, m43's don't suit 'adapted' lenses. I haven't tested M-glass on the OM-1 (BC has) but did on the Panasonic GH2. The results weren't even in the same ball park.
Having used loads of "legacy/adapted" lenses on my m43 cameras (and I do mean loads...100+), I think the reason why some (certainly not all) of those lenses deliver ugh performance is pretty clear: high photosite density in a small imaging area. Optical limitations—in particular, with M lenses, the oblique angles of incidence issue—are exposed. Put the same lenses in front of a 60mp or so "full frame" sensor and I suspect the results will be similarly brutal.
(With wider M lenses you might think a 17.3x13mm sensor would minimize off-axis degradation, but I don't find this to be the case. "Off axis" begins in earnest just millimeters away from the image center.)
I suspect that all non-native lenses, either primes or zooms, will give poor(er) results on bodies that use an AA filter. It's not just ray angle, exit pupils et al. It's probably what the OLPF does. Cameras that are are OLPF free have consistently given better results – there are reports both on this site and elsewhere that QED this**. Doesn't mean that there won't be issues with corner resolution, smearing etc – there may well be. It's a question of degree. I suspect this is the main difference between the m43 OMs, Panasonics et al v the Fuji (and other) AA-less CSC's - without discussing high ISO and file quality.
Actually both the Olympus E-M1 and Panasonic GX7 are AA filter free. As far as I can tell this makes no difference in adapted lens performance. Also, the character of my various M lenses is the same on my Fuji X-E1 and Epson R-D1. The Fuji has no AA filter while the Epson does. The difference in photosite count (16 vs. 6) between those two APS-C cameras doesn't seem to matter either. Neither camera's sensor has sufficient photosite density to expose the lenses to the degree the m43 cameras do.
The problem investing today in m43, is twofold. The lenses are good, very good. They're also expensive. But you're buying and committing to that format for the foreseeable future. The lenses are not adaptable, at least not to APS-C and FF. That's an expensive gamble - 35mm (ff) lenses and up, with the arrival of the mirrorless, game changing CSC's - potentially are.
This is true assuming one views buying photo gear as an investment. I realize many people do. I don't. When it comes to cameras & formats I'm a serial polygamist. I love to try different stuff! It's kinda like guitars...every guitar has at least one good song in it. IMO every camera & lens has at least one creatively valid photograph in it. This means I sometimes buy stuff that has minimal-to-no resale value. That's okay...goes with the approach. And I tend to keep lenses regardless. You never know when some tech development might put a defunct/sidelined mount back into play. (I continue to hope someone will make a rear optical cell/adapter for Contaflex lenses, though I'm hardly holding my breath.) So if m43 doesn't make it long-term? Doesn't matter to me...I'm enjoying it now.
Given that no-one can foresee the future (sometimes people make lucky guesses, of course), the direction(s) photo tech will take even in the near term is/are unknown. I'm personally rooting for something game-changing...the current near-stasis of Canikon domination is boring as hell.
-Dave-
-
I don't know if the OM has focus peaking
there is the OM-D line of cameras which has several models E-M5, E-M1 and based on the name registration E-M10... I know that you know, but it helps to pay respect to the names... E-M1 has focus peaking and it stabilizes the image when you are focusing - that helps a lot w/ longer lenses.
-
you might think a 17.3x13mm sensor
it is not 17.3x13mm sensor... you can see some actual spec's from manufacturers for 43/m43 sensors and 2x crop is a myth as well as 4 times lesser imaging area... it is 3.7 lesser imaging area and bigger crop and that is if you actually believe that FF gets the data from 36x24mm (instead of it being just the sensor size w/ a smaller imaging area) ;)
http://www.semicon.panasonic.co.jp/ds8/c3/IS00006AE.pdf
http://www.kodak.com/ek/uploadedFiles/Content/Small_Business/Images_Sensor_Solutions/Datasheets%28pdfs%29/KAF-8300LongSpec.pdf
-
BC, I'm planning to test the A7r, not the A7. Frankly speaking, I am more interested in Sony's A mount cams. Let's see what they have in store for next year. There are some lovely rendering lenses in the A mount lineup like the 135 Zeiss.
I understand that the EM1 is a fine little camera, but M4/3 just doesn't do it for me. Apart from the 4:3 aspect ratio, I don't really like them at all. I've tried an EM5, a GH2 and a GH3 and went back to APSC and 4:3 cropping for my secondary camera. It's a personal thing, I guess.
Another thing is that Olympus menus make me wanna throw something heavy at a wall. ;D
-
it is not 17.3x13mm sensor... you can see some actual spec's from manufacturers for 43/m43 sensors and 2x crop is a myth as well as 4 times lesser imaging area... it is 3.7 lesser imaging area and bigger crop and that is if you actually believe that FF gets the data from 36x24mm (instead of it being just the sensor size w/ a smaller imaging area) ;)
That's an upcoming sensor from Panasonic, 4k video & all, no? Maybe it's a little bigger than standard, like the GH2's sensor. :) Anyway, even a true 17.3x13mm sensor is a bit more than 1/4 the imaging area of a true 24x36mm sensor. Around 1/3.85, which isn't far off your 1/3.7. Close enough for rock 'n' roll!
-Dave-
-
I think the reason why some (certainly not all) of those lenses deliver ugh performance is pretty clear: high photosite density in a small imaging area. Optical limitations—in particular, with M lenses, the oblique angles of incidence issue—are exposed.
Dave/
You can add micro lenses and a host of other reasons to the mix. I don't know why legacy lenses don't work – they, often, just don't. Also, can you tell me why you get good results with the A7r but bad ones with the simple A7 ? High photosite density in a small imaging area, is surely not the (only) reason. I've asked the question before but no-one, so far, has answered that conundrum.
This is true assuming one views buying photo gear as an investment. I realize many people do. I don't. When it comes to cameras & formats I'm a serial polygamist. I love to try different stuff!
And that's great, I have 'no problem' with that, it's you, and those like you, that make this forum an interesting place to exchange views on gear. Without your feedback we'd be in fanboy territory. In contrast to you, I'm a gear 'minimalist' - I look for quality and simplicity. Simplicity, being one of the many reasons I bought the Fuji. To each his own.
I didn't diss either Olympus or m43 in my post, and it had nothing to do with 'investment' for long term gain. On the contrary, Olympus has produced great cameras and optics – they've got a great DNA. Not so sure about their past ethics, but that's another topic. SONY is now their largest single shareholder so I'm hopeful that, contrary to the NYT article above, they'll also survive the predicted meltdown.
I was pointing out, that for a different set of 'requirements' (see above) , there was ' still a decision to be made '. If you want legacy capability, it's SONY at $2,200. If you want m43, it's Olympus at a minimum system cost of about $5,000 plus. A pro will be able to write that off with depreciation and tax deductions. An amateur will have to pony up. That's all.
M
-
Interesting discussion. My work is mostly landscape which can get printed to 17 x 25 or occasionally larger. Like several other posters my main camera is also the 1Ds3 which has given great results and service, and is still working fine after all these years. But it is quite heavy especially with a few "L" lenses in my pack and a tripod. Is anyone who uses a full frame also printing large with the Oly? I'd love to know if the Oly prints hold up side by side or is there a noticeable difference? What concerns me is that not only is the sensor itself smaller but there is also a difference in file size.
Thanks and Happy New Year to all.
-
Dave/
You can add micro lenses and a host of other reasons to the mix. I don't know why legacy lenses don't work – they, often, just don't. Also, can you tell me why you get good results with the A7r but bad ones with the simple A7? High photosite density in a small imaging area, is surely not the (only) reason. I've asked the question before but no-one, so far, has answered that conundrum.
I don't own either Sony camera so I can't comment on them, other than to note that the reports I've read so far have been incomplete regarding legacy lenses, M mount in particular. Has anyone tried the same set of lenses on both an A7 and an A7r, used in the same way with the same subject matter under the same conditions, and done a compare & contrast?
Yes, the use (or not) of microlenses will be a factor with oblique light rays. I haven't seen any color fringing effects—other than those attributable to lens aberrations—with my M, LTM, CRF (Contax RF) or NRF (Nikon RF) lenses on m43 cameras and actually not much corner light falloff either. Same goes for M & LTM stuff on the Fuji X-E1. Clearly, though, this is an issue with the A7r at least. I'd expect it to be even more so with the A7...
I really wish Cosina would make a full-blown CRF/NRF adapter, including a focusing helical for 50mm lenses, for Fuji & Sony mirrorless cams. They know how to do it right due to their experience making CRF & NRF versions of the Bessa R2 rangefinder. These old RF lenses are hardly the best I own specs-wise but they've got lotsa character.
-Dave-
-
"With the em-5 (which shoots a 10% better file) picture mode natural, sat -1, sharpness -1, noise reduction non, graduation low key, contrast -2, and set the curves as above."
Dang I can't seem to find this setting; I see where to set the Picture Mode to Natural, but can't find the rest of the settings. Your right, crazy menu.
Also, do those settings apply to both Still and Video when you set it or do you need to do that in two menu areas?
-
That's an upcoming sensor from Panasonic, 4k video & all, no? Maybe it's a little bigger than standard, like the GH2's sensor.
nope, it is probably smaller than standard - see for example one of the original 43 sensors here = http://www.kodak.com/ek/uploadedFiles/Content/Small_Business/Images_Sensor_Solutions/Datasheets%28pdfs%29/KAF-8300LongSpec.pdf
and the new 4K one from Panasonic is here = http://www.semicon.panasonic.co.jp/ds8/c3/IS00006AE.pdf
-
"With the em-5 (which shoots a 10% better file) picture mode natural, sat -1, sharpness -1, noise reduction non, graduation low key, contrast -2, and set the curves as above."
Dang I can't seem to find this setting; I see where to set the Picture Mode to Natural, but can't find the rest of the settings. Your right, crazy menu.
Also, do those settings apply to both Still and Video when you set it or do you need to do that in two menu areas?
Chris,
I suggest reverting back to stock and starting again.
Get a note pad as the olympus menu doesn't return to where you left off. All the settings are there including curves (which are invaluable). Also I would suggest working the evf settings to match you computer as close as possible.
I find the stock look and settings on the olympus to be somewhat consumerish, with way too punch colors and contrast and at first didn't like the look I was getting, now I love the look and understand what the camera is capable of.
IMO
BC