Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Manoli on March 03, 2014, 09:17:17 pm
-
Michael,
Thanks for the follow up to Nick Devlin's hand-on review. The point you make about saving and recalling custom settings, I would hope could be addressed by Fuji in a future firmware update. They have enough custom setting 'registers' - it should be possible.
There is a feature though that I think is worth pointing out. The Fuji, at least both my X-E's, have four customisable buttons which can be assigned to a variety of options. Pressing and holding a button, brings up a list of all the customisable options from the menu, directly. No need to delve into the menu to change it's function.
Not a substitute for your main gripe, but nevertheless a useful feature and one I occasionally use when I'm out. On my cameras 'Fn2' is regularly assigned to varying settings depending on my mode of shooting: DR, AF mode, Photometry etc..,
-
Thanks for the follow up to Nick Devlin's hand-on review. The point you make about saving and recalling custom settings, I would hope could be addressed by Fuji in a future firmware update.
One of the reasons I have taken an interest in this camera as an addition to my bulkier kit is that Fuji seem to be pretty good on the firmware updating front. Particularly as they also improve the older models too.
Camera seems a bit flawed for me at moment but am curious to see how they will improve it via firmware.
-
It's really a question of workstyle. For me, the Fuji is either for one-off moments where it doesn't matter what info is in the finder bc it's likely gone almost immediately after the first couple of frame, or more deliberate work where there's lots of time to fine-tune in image review.
That said, I would really like a better in EVF histogram, that stays live after exposure/focus lock.
Michael is working on converting me to the Olympus OM-D E-M1 fan club, but that tattoos are WAY too long :-)
- N.
-
Michael is working on converting me to the Olympus OM-D E-M1 fan club, but that tattoos are WAY too long :-)
I really like that camera too, the size of camera plus a bunch of really good lenses is soooooo much smaller than my Canon gear and currently I'm leaning a bit more toward that than the X-T1. But yup clunky name indeed, EM1 or OMD1 would have done the trick nicely.
-
I had the chance to play with an X-T1 last Sunday together with my wife.
She is currently using a Nikon V2.
I told her I was considering upgrading the V2 to the X-T1 and asked her how she liked it.
Her answer was clear... "this is way too big"... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I can see the point about lack of custom modes but no camera till the Canon 5D had them either, no Leica has ever had them and photos still got taken by the reviewer for decades and as a professional. Yes it's an omission but I honestly don't think it's that big.
-
It's really a question of workstyle [...]
That said, I would really like a better in EVF histogram, that stays live after exposure/focus lock.
Agreed!
I'm using it with Leica-M lenses primarily.
-
A few comments regarding the posts above:
(1) It's strongly rumoured that the refresh rate of the X-T1 is coming to the older models, certainly the X-E2, not sure about the 1st generation. Hopefully that will include 'coloured' options for focus peaking.
(2) The big advantage of all the new CSC's is that you can mount a ton of legacy glass. The cost of the lenses is the 'gotcha'. They're good but expensive AND dedicated - Olympus even more so. A metabones/novoflex adapter and you can use any of your current Nikon/Canon (and other) lenses.
(3) I've also got the 35 and 18-55 zoom which offer another option for a light travel kit – particularly as I've found a mounting ring that allows me to mount both fujinon's back to back (Leica style) and wrap them in a protective sleeve. Add a body and you're good-to-go !
(4) Plus point – Fuji's implementation of auto-ISO. You can set a min/max ISO AND minimum shutter speed. Downside, In manual and auto-ISO, exposure compensation is limited to +/- 2/3 of a stop.
(5) Personally, I'll find it impossible to go back to a camera that doesn't have live view AND focus peaking. The combination, for critical focus, my style of shooting and subject, is unbeatable. The camera is on manual focus permanently. If I switch to a Fujinon, all I've got to do is hit the [AF-on] button for immediate auto-focus.
-
I really like that camera too, the size of camera plus a bunch of really good lenses is soooooo much smaller than my Canon gear and currently I'm leaning a bit more toward that than the X-T1. But yup clunky name indeed, EM1 or OMD1 would have done the trick nicely.
The negatives of the em-1 and micro 4/3 is just a legacy mindset from the days of having to have at least a full frame 35mm camera to produce an exceptional image.
The em-1 for stills hit's focus so fast and accurately, along with the stabilization makes up for 16 mpx. vs. 20 or even close to 30. I know because I've shot it side by side with all my cameras.
The only problem is (other than it's lack of tethering which btw I'm never going to stop complaining about that), is when you change an lens and look down into the camera. It's just a shock to see such a small frame. Put a lens back on shoot and look at the results and you forget about that tiny sensor, but yes, it's a fright to see it in real life.
The other downside, at least for me is the wide variety of lenses. Olympus primes are very good, but then you have the constant panasonic zooms, that are a little slow at 2.8 but very easy to use, then there is the original olympus 4/3 glass which is beautiful and comes at a high cost, the new Leica/Panasonic 1.2 autofocus lens at $1,200 a pop and last but not least are the voights .97 manual lenses.
Those last three lenses I'll use about 10 times a yea which probably isn't enough for the investment, except when you want that shoot through a wave of blur look, they are the only ticket to the show.
Still, go side by side with the fuji, the A7 Sony, any 20mpx or lower dslr and the omd always comes out good, sometimes a lot better.
Just don't look at the sensor.
IMO
BC
-
The negatives of the em-1 and micro 4/3 is just a legacy mindset from the days of having to have at least a full frame 35mm camera to produce an exceptional image.
The em-1 for stills hit's focus so fast and accurately, along with the stabilization makes up for 16 mpx. vs. 20 or even close to 30. I know because I've shot it side by side with all my cameras.
The only problem is (other than it's lack of tethering which btw I'm never going to stop complaining about that), is when you change an lens and look down into the camera. It's just a shock to see such a small frame. Put a lens back on shoot and look at the results and you forget about that tiny sensor, but yes, it's a fright to see it in real life.
The other downside, at least for me is the wide variety of lenses. Olympus primes are very good, but then you have the constant panasonic zooms, that are a little slow at 2.8 but very easy to use, then there is the original olympus 4/3 glass which is beautiful and comes at a high cost, the new Leica/Panasonic 1.2 autofocus lens at $1,200 a pop and last but not least are the voights .97 manual lenses.
Those last three lenses I'll use about 10 times a yea which probably isn't enough for the investment, except when you want that shoot through a wave of blur look, they are the only ticket to the show.
Still, go side by side with the fuji, the A7 Sony, any 20mpx or lower dslr and the omd always comes out good, sometimes a lot better.
Just don't look at the sensor.
IMO
BC
Have you used it (EM-1) very much in rotten (low) light, with people? What about skin tones?
Rob C
-
Flock of geese is passing while shooting my girlfriend... "With the X-T1 you turn the dial to change the shutter speed to something fast, say 1/1500 sec. You then turn the aperture dial to something on the wide side, because you don't want to have to use too high an ISO. The metering mode needs to be changed from average to spot, and the drive mode from single frame to high speed with focus tracking. Finally, the ISO needs to be boosted, because of the high shutter speed, or maybe reset to Auto."
This is a great and every day's real life example, Michael. You've forgotten to change the lens ;-)
Harald
-
Flock of geese is passing while shooting my girlfriend... "With the X-T1 you turn the dial to change the shutter speed to something fast, say 1/1500 sec. You then turn the aperture dial to something on the wide side, because you don't want to have to use too high an ISO. The metering mode needs to be changed from average to spot, and the drive mode from single frame to high speed with focus tracking. Finally, the ISO needs to be boosted, because of the high shutter speed, or maybe reset to Auto."
This is a great and every day's real life example, Michael. You've forgotten to change the lens ;-)
Harald
He already has a wide range zoom to cover for that
-
Flock of geese is passing while shooting my girlfriend... "With the X-T1 you turn the dial to change the shutter speed to something fast, say 1/1500 sec. You then turn the aperture dial to something on the wide side, because you don't want to have to use too high an ISO. The metering mode needs to be changed from average to spot, and the drive mode from single frame to high speed with focus tracking. Finally, the ISO needs to be boosted, because of the high shutter speed, or maybe reset to Auto."
This is a great and every day's real life example, Michael. You've forgotten to change the lens ;-)
Harald
With respect, Michael is entirely concerned with the wrong thing here. Whether or not the shot of the geese works out, he'll have to deal with a woman scorned. Worse, scorned for geese.
On the other hand she (allegedly) snores...
Good points Michael. This emphasizes some of the advantages digital has brought in terms of being able to create such profiles. It does make me wonder how many people actually use them. I don't, but that's reflection on what and how I shoot. I also note that some other reviewers have observed this lack, but don't place much emphasis on it. I wonder if this is because most reviewers don't actually shoot much, or perhaps this is one of those things that is a feature, but not a real benefit to most photographers.
Anyway, as always, I appreciate 'real-world' reviews.
-
I think the example Michael posts is actually an illustration of one possible way of working; many years ago, however, they'd have advised Pelmanism...
My personal view is quite the opposite: don't allow yourself to be sidetracked by geese or anything else: stick with the main plan. Once you've completed that, then, and only then bother about flirting with new possibilities. If you dither about like a headless chicken (or goose), then you'll get nowhere over a very long period of time. That, of course, demands that you do have something in mind before you pick up the camera in the first place. Certainly, some obsessives may always carry a camera, but again, that's not me. Again, quite the opposite: I need a lot of stimulation to find it worth the inconvenience. Much like getting up in the morning before about nine, but there I have the added benefits of hunger and the need for my morning medications to offer encouragement. Any connection between hunger for food and hunger for images is a large stretch of semantic credibility; pretty in Statements but shallow on the ground. Or whilst still in bed. It was one of the things I hated about calendar shoots: early golden hour. Imagine Cannes early a.m. when the street cleaner trucks are working the Croisette, not a soul on the bits of beach... better in bed. Unless you really really need empty local sand.
IMHO.
Rob C
-
My personal view is quite the opposite ...
Rob, at his best !
-
Very good Rob, but 'her indoors' still thinks you'd have been superlative writer. You know, a literary Sean Connery ...
-
Well, at least I did meet Connery at the premier celebration in Glasgow of Shalako, his 'western' with Brigitte Bardot.
I'd been booked by a PR man who had something to do with the event, and his brief was to shoot him and his wife around the periphery of the great man, better yet if they were shaking hands. Got it, but the real motivation in taking on the gig wasn't the small change, wasn't Bond in western movies, it was BB. But rotten luck, she didn't see fit to come along. I asked Bond where she was, and got a terse reply to the effect that she was being difficult or similar...
Oh well, she had been available a year or two earlier in '66!
One thing I have to admit: Bond has presence. He's big in life, walks like a panther - well, a human version - and I really did feel I was in a presence. Thank goodness I'm fairly convinced about my orientation - God help a woman.
Rob C
-
The problem with "retro" in the case of both Nikon and Fuji is that they made film cameras that don't use film. They didn't understand that "retro" as done by Olympus didn't have much at all to do with anything other than appearance. That silly little pentaprism housing on the Olympus cameras is essentially meaningless -- they needed some space, so they made it look like a pentaprism, while Panasonic, needing roughly the same space for its GH models, chose not to to that. Okay, it's just a design choice. Given that, the Olympus is thoroughly modern. Fuji and Nikon on the other hand, made old-fashioned cameras that don't take advantage of what can be done with completely integrated electronics.
The design tension here has a couple of facets -- there are some ergonomic aspects of cameras that were thoroughly worked out with film cameras -- the size of the critical dials and buttons, for example, so that they could be used by people wearing gloves; or the distance from the side of the cameras to the shutter release, so that people with both large and small hands could use them. Some of that occasionally gets lost in cameras that are basically designed by computer engineers, who may be too menu-oriented, and too Apple-design oriented. We need our buttons, even if they don't look nice. But when the powers-that-be decide that retro is a trend, some of the good computer stuff may be lost as the pendulum swings back to more mechanical devices.
I wonder if any big camera manufacturer has ever tried crowd-sourced design? Not focus groups that comment on designs that are presented to them by the engineers, and then pick the best (they may all be poor) but simply attempting to get input from a very large crowd of knowledgable people?
-
Go Michael! I think you should also ask for a Mirror Lockup button. Just for effect! :-*
-
Good points Michael. This emphasizes some of the advantages digital has brought in terms of being able to create such profiles. It does make me wonder how many people actually use them. I don't, but that's reflection on what and how I shoot.
I do and for pretty much the reasons that Michael listed. When I want to shoot action, I need 1/500 (or better), auto-ISO is required, don't care about aperture, fast frame rate, auto-focus tracking of moving subjects, etc. Similarly, I can set a profile for tripod work (shutter speed unimportant, ISO 100, aperture I set based on scene, frame rate of one, focus is often manually set from the lcd.) It is easier for me to look at a knob and confirm that it is positioned on the right customisation group than to have to work through all of the settings (and try to remember which one needs to be what) individually. I just wish that mirror lock up could be grouped in that! It can be of use in any number of situations ... even if I'm in a city taking a photograph of a building or whatever, maybe a Bugatti Veyron will turn around the corner and I've got maybe 5 seconds to pickup my camera and get a shot before it passes me and is just exhaust pipes. Whilst said photograph of the Veyron might not be "art" or photographically significant, it is the kind of thing that is good for facebook and if I'm spending all my turn turning knobs, then all I get to do is talk about it on facebook rather than show it!
I also note that some other reviewers have observed this lack, but don't place much emphasis on it. I wonder if this is because most reviewers don't actually shoot much, or perhaps this is one of those things that is a feature, but not a real benefit to most photographers.
We could speculate endlessly as to why this is the case ...
-
Have you used it (EM-1) very much in rotten (low) light, with people? What about skin tones?
Rob C
OK.
Before I answer remember this line. Penis Envy. If you like old Sean Connery then the em-1 probably isn't your cup of single malt.
Rotten low light.
Nothing without a tripod works well in rotten low light. I mean you can shot it and some cameras like the 5d3, or d3/d4 will smooth the heck out of it but honestly nothing really works that well past 1000 or so iso unless you don't mind doing a cinema look and silouettes.
Remember between f 4 and 5.6 on a 35mm camera is 2.8 on a m43 so what takes almost 3,000 iso Full Frame takes under 1,000 iso on m43
Skin Tones
Beautiful as any camera I've used. The camera is adjustable, you can make a look, even if you shoot raw and they color quickly because next to my 1dx which has more of a global color the em-1/em5 have more specific color.
They do hold up as well as my Canon 1dx.
But under really good light medium format kills, even old medium format.
_______________________________
I never bought m43 for stills, I bought the pana m43 for smaller motion cameras to compliment our REDs.
I bought the em-5 just because I wanted to though It took me two months to actually trust that that tiny sensor.
I actually believe the em-5 shoots a slightly prettier file than the em-1 (different sensors) bought the em-1 because it had a pc connection and is a much better thought out camera.
Also sleep can be turned off when tethering wi-fi to an ipad (what a drag to tether to an ipad)
______________________________
To me the upside of the em-1 is.
1. It's built beautifully. Not leica like because of the design, but think what a film nikon would feel like if Leica built it.
Obviously Olympus hit it with the em-5 then the em-1 because Sony, Nikon and Fuji copied it, though without the feel and in the A7's case, the build quality.
You really have to use it to understand how well olympus makes this camera.
2. wysiwyg viewfinder. I use the em-4 add on finder because it goes waist level to straight on and it keeps my nose away from the rear lcd. Either way you can adjust any of the viewfinders to more closely match your computer. Not exact but closer.
3. Any lens. This comes with an asterick because whatever lens you use you double the length. 25 is 50, 42 is 84, 12 is 24.
4. Manual focus. You can actually see what your shooting. Now it takes a while to get use to an evf.
5. Static Auto focus. Wicked fast and covers the whole frame (almost)
6. Tracking focus. Not as bad as people think, but not the camera to shoot at Silverstone. Could be some day, but today that 1dx or D4 territory.
7. Size. I'm not a walk around take a picture guy, but 6 lenses and two bodies can easily fit in a small messenger bag, but see #1 on downsides.
8. Format. 43 is great for verticals, not great for horizontal. If I shot fine art, then everything would be 43 format and having those extra sides for some reason let's you allow the image to breath.
9. Touch screen that works, though I turn it off cause the switches are easier.
10. Once set up you have built your own camera.
The downside of the em-1
1. Penis envy. It's really difficult to look at a little camera and a little sensor and think your going to be serious about the image.
I can prove it's good, I do use it, but I always feel in the back of my mind I could do better. (in so, so many ways).
Though I think if the olympus was the size of a pentax 6x7 and had a fake frame format and big lenses and you saw the output people would scream "yea boy, that's the way big film like cameras shoot."
2. Other cameras, which translates to penis envy. I wanted the Sony A7 to be better. I tested it time and time again against my em-5 and every file, every time was not up to the olympus. I know some people are going to show me a chart to prove the opposite, but I never saw it.
In fact I was very surprised since the em-5 has a Sony sensor and shoots a beautiful file
3. Lenses. The negative is I dig lenses and they all have a use. The Oly primes are great most are fast, the slowest f2. Nothing wider than 12 (24mm) at F4. Then there is the non micro 43 lenses that are semi big but all fast f2 for a 150 (300mm in ff).
That's a great lens. The Pana Leicas are nice from 1.2 to 1.4 but are expensive over a grand for each.
Really all the lenses are covered, it just costs to really cover and want autofocus. If you manually focus I'd just buy the three .95 Voightlanders and be done with it. Those are beautiful lenses, period.
4. Crazy ass menu. Doesn't revert back to where you were. It takes hours to get it right and the manual is just as insane. Now once you've done it, it's done and your camera is really "your" camera.
The menu makes sense it's just deep, deep and deep.
(Ever see your Parents try to program a vhs recorder? Now you get the idea of the olympus menu).
IMO
BC
PS Just one other thing. Once you get past the screwy menu, the evf learning, the setup, as crazy as this sounds for an all electronic device but it becomes very analog. It's like picking up an F3 and start shooting. Sure you gotta set you wb and iso, but that's like loading film so no big, but of all the cameras out there, except Leica, in the modern world this camera is analog and I think even more so than the fuji and I can't really explain why.
-
I do and for pretty much the reasons that Michael listed. When I want to shoot action, I need 1/500 (or better), auto-ISO is required, don't care about aperture, fast frame rate, auto-focus tracking of moving subjects, etc. Similarly, I can set a profile for tripod work (shutter speed unimportant, ISO 100, aperture I set based on scene, frame rate of one, focus is often manually set from the lcd.) It is easier for me to look at a knob and confirm that it is positioned on the right customisation group than to have to work through all of the settings (and try to remember which one needs to be what) individually. I just wish that mirror lock up could be grouped in that! It can be of use in any number of situations ... even if I'm in a city taking a photograph of a building or whatever, maybe a Bugatti Veyron will turn around the corner and I've got maybe 5 seconds to pickup my camera and get a shot before it passes me and is just exhaust pipes. Whilst said photograph of the Veyron might not be "art" or photographically significant, it is the kind of thing that is good for facebook and if I'm spending all my turn turning knobs, then all I get to do is talk about it on facebook rather than show it!
We could speculate endlessly as to why this is the case ...
Yep. I get why some photographers might find it important. My bet is that many more might find it important and useful but don't bother with it.
-
BC, in this last post and a couple of others, it seems like you shoot jpeg not raw. Is that the case?
-
OK.
Before I answer remember this line. Penis Envy. If you like old Sean Connery then the em-1 probably isn't your cup of single malt.
Rotten low light.
Nothing without a tripod works well in rotten low light. I mean you can shot it and some cameras like the 5d3, or d3/d4 will smooth the heck out of it but honestly nothing really works that well past 1000 or so iso unless you don't mind doing a cinema look and silouettes.
Remember between f 4 and 5.6 on a 35mm camera is 2.8 on a m43 so what takes almost 3,000 iso Full Frame takes under 1,000 iso on m43
Skin Tones
Beautiful as any camera I've used. The camera is adjustable, you can make a look, even if you shoot raw and they color quickly because next to my 1dx which has more of a global color the em-1/em5 have more specific color.
They do hold up as well as my Canon 1dx.
But under really good light medium format kills, even old medium format.
_______________________________
I never bought m43 for stills, I bought the pana m43 for smaller motion cameras to compliment our REDs.
I bought the em-5 just because I wanted to though It took me two months to actually trust that that tiny sensor.
I actually believe the em-5 shoots a slightly prettier file than the em-1 (different sensors) bought the em-1 because it had a pc connection and is a much better thought out camera.
Also sleep can be turned off when tethering wi-fi to an ipad (what a drag to tether to an ipad)
______________________________
To me the upside of the em-1 is.
1. It's built beautifully. Not leica like because of the design, but think what a film nikon would feel like if Leica built it.
Obviously Olympus hit it with the em-5 then the em-1 because Sony, Nikon and Fuji copied it, though without the feel and in the A7's case, the build quality.
You really have to use it to understand how well olympus makes this camera.
2. wysiwyg viewfinder. I use the em-4 add on finder because it goes waist level to straight on and it keeps my nose away from the rear lcd. Either way you can adjust any of the viewfinders to more closely match your computer. Not exact but closer.
3. Any lens. This comes with an asterick because whatever lens you use you double the length. 25 is 50, 42 is 84, 12 is 24.
4. Manual focus. You can actually see what your shooting. Now it takes a while to get use to an evf.
5. Static Auto focus. Wicked fast and covers the whole frame (almost)
6. Tracking focus. Not as bad as people think, but not the camera to shoot at Silverstone. Could be some day, but today that 1dx or D4 territory.
7. Size. I'm not a walk around take a picture guy, but 6 lenses and two bodies can easily fit in a small messenger bag, but see #1 on downsides.
8. Format. 43 is great for verticals, not great for horizontal. If I shot fine art, then everything would be 43 format and having those extra sides for some reason let's you allow the image to breath.
9. Touch screen that works, though I turn it off cause the switches are easier.
10. Once set up you have built your own camera.
The downside of the em-1
1. Penis envy. It's really difficult to look at a little camera and a little sensor and think your going to be serious about the image.
I can prove it's good, I do use it, but I always feel in the back of my mind I could do better. (in so, so many ways).
Though I think if the olympus was the size of a pentax 6x7 and had a fake frame format and big lenses and you saw the output people would scream "yea boy, that's the way big film like cameras shoot."
2. Other cameras, which translates to penis envy. I wanted the Sony A7 to be better. I tested it time and time again against my em-5 and every file, every time was not up to the olympus. I know some people are going to show me a chart to prove the opposite, but I never saw it.
In fact I was very surprised since the em-5 has a Sony sensor and shoots a beautiful file
3. Lenses. The negative is I dig lenses and they all have a use. The Oly primes are great most are fast, the slowest f2. Nothing wider than 12 (24mm) at F4. Then there is the non micro 43 lenses that are semi big but all fast f2 for a 150 (300mm in ff).
That's a great lens. The Pana Leicas are nice from 1.2 to 1.4 but are expensive over a grand for each.
Really all the lenses are covered, it just costs to really cover and want autofocus. If you manually focus I'd just buy the three .95 Voightlanders and be done with it. Those are beautiful lenses, period.
4. Crazy ass menu. Doesn't revert back to where you were. It takes hours to get it right and the manual is just as insane. Now once you've done it, it's done and your camera is really "your" camera.
The menu makes sense it's just deep, deep and deep.
(Ever see your Parents try to program a vhs recorder? Now you get the idea of the olympus menu).
IMO
BC
PS Just one other thing. Once you get past the screwy menu, the evf learning, the setup, as crazy as this sounds for an all electronic device but it becomes very analog. It's like picking up an F3 and start shooting. Sure you gotta set you wb and iso, but that's like loading film so no big, but of all the cameras out there, except Leica, in the modern world this camera is analog and I think even more so than the fuji and I can't really explain why.
Thanks, BC, for the time for your exhaustive response!
Penis envv isn't a problem here - don't think it ever was; what exists has kept me happy long enough - isn't that what it's for? ;-)
Anyway, thanks again for your views on the camera. As you probably know, I was/am a Nikon shooter since forever, but I did once look at the Leica R6 in a dealership; it felt very good, very solid and heavy for the size. But wasn't it actually a Minolta product? Whatever, it didn't offer full screen coverage so that was that.
I agree with the problems about 135 format verticals: too skinny and cramping, but the format's rather nice as horizontals. It's the reason I now tend to keep the camera horizontal most of the time - no page shapes to fill, and the sense of 'location' comes through better when there's a bit more of it on show around the subject.
Still digging London?
Rob C
-
It's amazing how well a second camera body helps to alleviate all those "What lens plus settings to choose as preset" anxieties when working under uncertain conditions in the field :)
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Still digging London?
Rob C
Yea, though traveling now. Warm in LA, tomorrow cold in NY.
I didn't mean to go so far in my response, it set on the computer for a few days and I just added on it between sessions.
I guess I should proofread.
Most of what I said on the Olympus holds true for the fuji and of all the camera companies, I like the people at fuji, like their low key style.
I'd have done the fuji in a heartbeat if they did video well, but like I said I backed into m43 because of video. The still side was just a plus.
IMO
BC
-
Yea, though traveling now. Warm in LA, tomorrow cold in NY.
I didn't mean to go so far in my response, it set on the computer for a few days and I just added on it between sessions.
I guess I should proofread.
Most of what I said on the Olympus holds true for the fuji and of all the camera companies, I like the people at fuji, like their low key style.
I'd have done the fuji in a heartbeat if they did video well, but like I said I backed into m43 because of video. The still side was just a plus.
IMO
BC
Are you crazy? Folks here love your replies; you're one of the few doing very much anyone else would love to be doing!
Keep 'em alive and coming.
Rob C
-
I got a chance to handle a XT-1 at the camera store yesterday. Its a nice piece of kit but I think the retro control knob think has its place for those who have not moved on. My serious photography got going on a Chinon CP7-m a fully modern SLR with electronic controls. A contemporary PASM mode dial just makes sense when accompanied with custom modes to retain presets. Perhaps Fuji will follow up with a XT-1 body with a contemporary control layout call it a XC-1. I would be much happier plunking down the cash on something like that. Even more so in a cheaper plastic body, cameras are still evolving too fast to plunk down top dollar on something so rugged but still having little plastic buttons.
Pete
-
Remember between f 4 and 5.6 on a 35mm camera is 2.8 on a m43 so what takes almost 3,000 iso Full Frame takes under 1,000 iso on m43
Factor in sensor-based stabilization (IBIS) and, depending on the lens, the difference is even greater. With the A7r, for example, I shoot handheld at a 2x focal length minimum Tv with non-stabilized lenses (meaning everything but the 24–70/4 zoom). With longer lenses I speed up the Tv even more. With the E-M1/5 in low light I typically use .5x focal length handheld, and this is conservative. I have no qualms about using the 17.5/0.95 Voigtländer wide open at 1/8th sec. if needed. The equivalent native lens on the Sony is 3 stops+ slower (though more like 2.6 stops in actual light transmission) and needs 1/80th sec. for me to feel confident using it. Bye bye larger sensor noise advantage.
-Dave-
-
I'm conflicted. Looking to upgrade from an OMD-EM5. OM1 would be logical, and it's a great camera. But, I do find the m4/3 images a bit "flat" / two dimensional. I have rented APS-C Fujis, and both those and my 60D can render a more 3D-like feeling to the pictures, by my eye (think basic family, kids, travel subjects).
Would love someone to convince me the difference isn't real, but I think this actually is one aspect that is an image quality difference between the Olympus and the Fuji. Plus I love the thought of shooting the Fuji 56 1.2 :)
-
I'm conflicted. Looking to upgrade from an OMD-EM5. OM1 would be logical, and it's a great camera. But, I do find the m4/3 images a bit "flat" / two dimensional. I have rented APS-C Fujis, and both those and my 60D can render a more 3D-like feeling to the pictures, by my eye (think basic family, kids, travel subjects).
Would love someone to convince me the difference isn't real, but I think this actually is one aspect that is an image quality difference between the Olympus and the Fuji. Plus I love the thought of shooting the Fuji 56 1.2 :)
The Fuji sensor is larger, so depth of field is reduced, so that may be what you are experiencing.
I had a 20D years back and it never really worked for me and traded up to a 5D as soon as I could and loved the bigger sensor. Try shooting at wider apertures and see if that helps.
However I have no issues with a smaller sensor for a carry around camera as I tend to prefer large DoF then.
-
IBIS or whatever is nice to have but rarely if ever essential. It can be used in combination with proper panning technique etc to improve the number of shots that you may keep rather than discard at the outset of your editing.
I keep on finding that not only people and animals are just so unreasonable in they keep on moving about at different speeds and that the wind blows end so on. None of which we can get IBIS to do anything about.It's like FPS, just because you can keep on blasting away at 11 fps it doesn't mean you are going to get anything of any use - you might, you might not.
Some of my cameras have IBIS,some of my lenses have some form or stabilization just like some of them work with body screw focus motors and others have built in motors.
IBIS is more a point of justification as to the camera you actually bought than a reason to buy that camera. Unless of course you suffer from some form of motor neuron disease when it can be a definite need if you are going to continue photography. Or AF is for someone with failing eyesight.
I prefer to use 24MP and 36 MP FF cameras as they give me more options than a camera body much the same size with a quarter sized sensor. To each their own.
-
I keep on finding that not only people and animals are just so unreasonable in they keep on moving about at different speeds and that the wind blows end so on. None of which we can get IBIS to do anything about.
I had an argument with someone once who insisted that IS would freeze moving objects and showed an image that proved his point. The image was indeed very sharp aprt from the blurry dog jumping through the air. ::)
It's like FPS, just because you can keep on blasting away at 11 fps it doesn't mean you are going to get anything of any use - you might, you might not.
I do dance photography and out of curiosity I tried using motor drive on one occasion to see how well it worked. Not very.
I get a much higher hit rate taking a shot at the moment I want instead.
IBIS is more a point of justification as to the camera you actually bought than a reason to buy that camera. Unless of course you suffer from some form of motor neuron disease when it can be a definite need if you are going to continue photography. Or AF is for someone with failing eyesight.
I find IS useful, but then I shoot in dingy conditions a fair bit so it helps with low shutter speeds and is very good for handheld camera footage.
You can't manually focus fast lens accurately on Canon focusing screens, because they make all fast lenses seem like f2.8s. So it's either AF or Live view.
I prefer to use 24MP and 36 MP FF cameras as they give me more options than a camera body much the same size with a quarter sized sensor. To each their own.
Didn't know they were mutually exclusive. :P
-
I agree with Michaels comments about the X-T1, but have my own opinion about the retro interface. I posted a question about the retro aspects of the X-T1 on the DPReview forums and received a lot of comments, basically three categories:
A. I like the way it looks.
B. Why don't you go buy a black plastic blob. What looks better to you, a 1960s vintage muscle car or a Ford Fiesta? A somewhat hostile variation of A.
C. I like the controls that are like old film cameras because it is a long-established and well thought out camera interface. I equally like being able to glance at the top of the X-T1 and know the settings.
For categories A and B there is no argument or cogent response. They are what they are. For category C I have a few things to point out. Let's assume the following are the settings you would like to know by glancing at the body and lens:
1. Focus Mode (M, C or S)
2. OIS (On or Off)
3. Aperture (A or f/stop)
4. ISO
5. Drive
6. Shutter Speed
7. Metering Mode
8. Exposure Compensation
To see all takes more than a glance. You might have to tilt the camera forward if it's not hanging around you neck, and you will have to tilt it back and tip it to see 1-3. Let's take them one at a time.
1. Focus Mode. What you see is what you get.
2. OIS. What you see is what you get.
3. Aperture. There are two variations.
-- If you have a prime with aperture settings on the ring, you know the setting. There is an exception. If you are using the remote control app, the aperture can be changed in the app regardless of where the ring is set.
-- If you have an XF lens without markings on the aperture ring or an XC lens without an aperture ring, you cannot know the aperture by looking at the camera controls.
4. ISO. What you see is what you get with the same exception for when you set it with the remote control app. The app settings are forgotten when it's disconnected -- except for the focus area, that sticks.
5. Drive. What you see it what you get with one annoying bit. The self timer turns off when the camera turns off. Very annoying when shooting in a light tent. I turn auto power off to off.
6. Shutter Speed. This is very annoying! When set to other than auto, the speeds are in full stop clicks. I can't imagine any finer setting on the dial. The rear command dial adjusts the shutter speed further in 1/3 stop increments +/- 2/3 stop. So you see an approximate shutter speed setting. Settings in 1/3 stop increments are standard for digital cameras. When shooting in a light tent with aperture set where I want, making fine adjustments for different objects require going back and forth between the dial on top and the dial on the front when a 1/3 stop adjustment crosses a full stop increment. I imagine this would hold true for many outdoor situations in low light. Very clumsy!
7. Metering Mode. What you see is what you get.
8. Exposure compensation. What you see is what you get. But, of course it is ignored in manual mode.
I can understand the attraction of what look and act (almost) like familiar mechanical controls, but they are not that at all. All of the settings on the camera except the zoom (focus, aperture, everything) are effectively buttons in the form of dials. Making the physical dials with physical markings limits the flexibility of settings that can be made without totally confusing the photographer. There is no reason everything except zoom could not be set by an app or other control, but for the confusion it would present. It is this conflict between what the physical settings show and what could be set that rule out customs settings.
I believe (hope?) the retro look and dials are purely a marketing thing and not a future direction. Incomprehensible menu settings for most digital cameras have sent people begging for the simplicity of the "old way". There is no reason a camera interface cannot be designed that makes important settings visible with the camera on or off and also intuitive, fast and simple to set. Wouldn't it be better to see these important settings in one high-contrast, small e-ink display on the top or back of the body instead of looking all around the camera? Someone said this would be expensive -- it would be much cheaper than machined dials.
There is really no good or bad in what I have said here. It's just the way the X-T1 works and my reaction to it. Several things annoy me, some not so much, some a lot, like the shutter speed setting and the self timer turning off. But, I'm keeping my X-T1. There are too many things to like about it, especially when compared to other mirrorless cameras. I believe Fujifilm, more than any other manufacturer is committed to quality, easy-to-use cameras primarily aimed at still photography. That's why I'm sticking with them for the foreseeable future.
-
There was nothing wrong with PASM it works and works pretty well.
I don't mind the ISO setting dial that's useful enough..I can't really see the point of aperture control on lens and shutter speed dials on a modern body. Other than makers trying to re-invent the wheel, I think the retro take is not always a good idea and done for practical reasons.
I'd also like to point out a common misunderstanding from some ILC reviewers. Not every DSLR users wants a massive pro level body with meaty grip, some of us actually like mid sized bodies. And cameras have to be used too, making something small doesn't mean it's ergonomic or useful. Some folks may or may not be interested in a camera be it DSLR or ILC. The future is what people want, not what people think they should have forced on them.
-
BarryFitzgerald,
Second that!
-
Thanks for the post Michael.
While I agree that custom settings are useful, providing them on this camera would mean all the external controls would no longer indicate the way the camera is set up. This is a big bone of contention on the Nikon DF.
-
George61D,
There are already instances where the external controls do not indicate the setting. Specifically, when adjustments have been made to the shutter speed using the rear command dial, and when the ISO, aperture or exposure compensation has been changed by the remote control app. Minor, but different.
The 1/3 stop shutter speed adjustments when in manual mode drive me nuts! Let's say I have the shutter speed set to 1/6 and I want to change it a full stop to 1/3. Quickly now, tell me what I have to do. I first move the dial from 4 to 2, then 2 clicks to adjust it to 1/3. This should be 3 clicks on a wheel with no mental calculation of what needs to be done.
-
Thanks for the post Michael.
While I agree that custom settings are useful, providing them on this camera would mean all the external controls would no longer indicate the way the camera is set up. This is a big bone of contention on the Nikon DF.
That indeed is the issue. It appears that one can't have both at the same time. It's then up to each individual to decide which they prefer.
M
-
I plunked down my cash for the X-E2 even though I am not a big fan of the traditional shutter speed dial and on-lens aperture ring (with which I am well familiar from film days). The idea that these, and a topside iso dial let you see at a glance how you are set up is a canard. On my D800E the top LCD lets me see exactly how I am set up at a glance, with tons of extra info too. And the front and rear control wheels, in conjunction with various feature buttons (exp comp, iso, wb) let me change settings almost instantaneously, either with the camera up to my eye or not. Now the Fuji X series are absolutely gorgeous cameras, but in terms of ergonomics, we have definitely moved on. (Still love shooting with the X-E2, though, feels great in the hand)
-
For sure....but then I like my lady...even if she snores :)
-
I'm conflicted. Looking to upgrade from an OMD-EM5. OM1 would be logical, and it's a great camera. But, I do find the m4/3 images a bit "flat" / two dimensional.
Most people don't really shoot everything wide open, unless they're using a f4 zoom, but I see your point. Then again, the rush to full frame out of focus backgrounds is kind of funky looking.
I shot this with medium format around F 5.6 and didn't focus to try to throw everything into a non de script blur but the subject into a blur, but to put attention where I wanted the viewer to look.
I actually always wished I had shot this stopped down more to show more detail in the rock formations of the background.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/lifestyle/pictures/rr_life_0126.jpg)
Since this was 645 with an 80mm, I would assume with m43 with a 35 it would be around 2.4 or something close.
OVF's with 35mm dslrs throw you. They all look two stops down from wide open and I've tested this a lot doing background plates.
EVF's show you more of wysiwyg, but there is this thought of if the background is ugly throw it out of focus and in reality if the background is ugly then that usually means some of the image is uninteresting.
I'm not pushing stopping down, (though I do) because I think every lens ever made should be f.85 out of the box, because options are options.
Then again when you look at some of the beautiful photographs of the past from Ernst Haas http://www.ernst-haas.com/ (I could make a much longer list than one photographer) he probably shot everything at f5.6 to 8 on his twin lens (I don't know, just guessing) and like most film photographers never dropped to f4 except under low light, because he filled his frame with beautiful composition and interesting images.
You see it all the time now, in commerce and art, a persons face and the background is a blur of blown out white blobs and that's not interesting, it's just stuff.
I'm buying the voight f.95 lenses for m43 and not for out of focus blur or the actual speed, but because the lenses have pretty rendering with the olympus and panasonics.
I think the fuji is a good camera, but limiting. There is nothing it really does that a full frame dslr won't and in the long run it's not less expensive than a 5d2 and obviously video doesn't concern you but I can't use the same lens set for stills and video with the fuji as I can m43. I wish I could because I might have gone the fuji way.
maybe I look at cameras different but I don't believe in buying something that does what I currently have. The olympus em-1/5 to me does some things other cameras don't. They cover the full frame with autofocus points (if you desire), and you can use the vf-4 finder and shoot waist level. Waist level is such a different look than eyes level, no matter how much you twist your body to get lower.
The main thing they do is raw or jpeg, they get rid of the red ear syndrome. Dslrs and most cmos seem to have this ability to see changes in skin tones as red, especially in areas like ears, or in shadows or the worst backlight coming through the lightness of someone's ears.
Olympus does something unique with their settings, i don't know what it is but I do know it's unique and the rest to me seem like they are always kind of candy colored.
Still your right, sometimes bigger is better, bigger frame, faster lenses, etc. etc., but I find the difference between m43 and an aps c sensor to be minimum.
IMO
BC
-
There is one very obvious difference with micro 4/3 and APS-C and it's simply this.
APS-C shooter probably has some FF lenses in their collection, you can easily offload crop lenses if you make a move to full frame entirely.
The DSLR battle is far from over, there is one obvious push area left. Canikon moving their crop shooters to full frame, I would expect a "genuinely affordable" full frame to appear from both makers soon, and by that I mean sub £1000 for a body.
The ILC makers have to compete against the huge system that Canon has, a lot of people have bought into their lenses on various mounts and they will need more reasons to move than just size. I think it's pretty clear that Canon are not going to give up their mount, and they can't because it would be suicide to do so. I can't see a situation where any of the ILC makers will be in a position to dominate the market even years down the road. People complain Canon are complacent and slow..and ignoring mirrorless. But they still seem to be the brand of choice for many.
I can't honestly think of any obvious advantage bar size I would gain by offloading my inventory and buying into one of the ILC systems. I would absolutely be worse off and out of pocket doing so. Even starting from scratch, whilst the Fuji system is interesting..it's not mature enough for my needs. Maybe in 3-5 years we can revisit this and see where things are going
-
OVF's with 35mm dslrs throw you. They all look two stops down from wide open and I've tested this a lot doing background plates.
Max aperture re DoF with Canon focusing screens is effectively f2.8, so manually focusing any lens faster than f2.8 is a crapshoot.
Not any issue with lenses f2.8 or slower.
-
There is one very obvious difference with micro 4/3 and APS-C and it's simply this.
APS-C shooter probably has some FF lenses in their collection, you can easily offload crop lenses if you make a move to full frame entirely.
<snip>
I can't honestly think of any obvious advantage bar size I would gain by offloading my inventory and buying into one of the ILC systems. I would absolutely be worse off and out of pocket doing so. Even starting from scratch, whilst the Fuji system is interesting..it's not mature enough for my needs. Maybe in 3-5 years we can revisit this and see where things are going
I've argued many times that the size advantage is the ONLY reason to buy m4/3 cameras for serious photography. I don't know of anybody who wouldn't prefer the quality and flexibility of a full-frame sensor -- or even a MF camera -- to a m4/3, EXCEPT for size (and in the case of MF, the cost) of the camera bodies and lenses. I don't doubt that the full-frame makers will push FF down below $1,000, but all that will do is strand a lot of APS-C shooters. You can't offload those lenses so easily if nobody wants them, because FF has gotten really cheap.
But there are a lot of people like me (and bcooter, apparently) who have reasons to prefer m4/3 purely because of the size of the cameras, and the size of the lenses. I have a full Nikon kit, a D800 and perhaps eight lenses, but hardly ever use it anymore, because it's too big for what I'm doing now. Sometimes when I'm looking at shots on taken on Main Street in Santa Monica or MacArthur Park in downtown LA I'll wish I'd had a larger sensor so that I could blow up the image more, for a little better look at what I'm shooting, but I'd rather have the slightly too-small image than having to remove my large camera from my ass, where somebody stuck it after noticing what I was doing. I doubt FF and APS-C camera will get much smaller than they are now (say, the size of a D800/600) because then you start running into ergonomic problems involving the balance of those large lenses.
-
I doubt FF and APS-C camera will get much smaller than they are now (say, the size of a D800/600) because then you start running into ergonomic problems involving the balance of those large lenses.
1. You don't have to use big lenses. ;) I use my 5Ds with primes and a smaller camera body would actually improve balance.
2. The Sony A7 cameras are pretty darn tiny, so it's already started.
3. 35mm film cameras were mostly minute compared to today's equivalent sized sensor bodies. They coped.
-
I've argued many times that the size advantage is the ONLY reason to buy m4/3 cameras for serious photography. I don't know of anybody who wouldn't prefer the quality and flexibility of a full-frame sensor -- or even a MF camera -- to a m4/3, EXCEPT for size (and in the case of MF, the cost) of the camera bodies and lenses.
Er... BCooter has often mention how much he likes the shots from his OMDs and can be better to work with than his 1Dx
-
I've argued many times that the size advantage is the ONLY reason to buy m4/3 cameras for serious photography. I don't know of anybody who wouldn't prefer the quality and flexibility of a full-frame sensor -- or even a MF camera -- to a m4/3, EXCEPT for size (and in the case of MF, the cost) of the camera bodies and lenses.
I also like using f/1.4 in low light and getting useful DOF at that aperture. With the fast Voigtländers f/1.4 takes you into sweet spot territory...decreased corner falloff, improved contrast, resolution and saturation. As someone who has loved available darkness photography since film days with Delta 3200 these things are big pluses.
-Dave-
-
The ILC makers have to compete against the huge system that Canon has, a lot of people have bought into their lenses on various mounts and they will need more reasons to move than just size.
Not necessarily - one of the main advantages of the CSC's is exactly that - INTEROPERABILITY. Just look at some of the threads in this forum to understand how many Canon shooters (and pros to boot) have added the A7 to their arsenal. All it takes is an adapter. None of them ditched their other systems. And not just Canon.
... all that will do is strand a lot of APS-C shooters. You can't offload those lenses so easily if nobody wants them, because FF has gotten really cheap.
Very true and a very good reason to keep 'valued' glass.
But there are a lot of people like me (and bcooter, apparently) who have reasons to prefer m4/3 purely because of the size of the cameras, and the size of the lenses. I have a full Nikon kit, a D800 and perhaps eight lenses, but hardly ever use it anymore ..
I did too. Sold the D800 and kept the lenses, all primes. As to why ? - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=85282.msg693686#msg693686 - do I regret it ? For the moment, not one bit.
1. You don't have to use big lenses. ;) I use my 5Ds with primes and a smaller camera body would actually improve balance.
2. The Sony A7 cameras are pretty darn tiny, so it's already started.
3. 35mm film cameras were mostly minute compared to today's equivalent sized sensor bodies. They coped.
Jeremy,
Another one of your nail-on-the-head posts!
I suspect that you'd probably enjoy using a CSC , no HSS sync (but you'll still have your main system) - why don't you borrow or rent a camera, add an adapter and try it ? Bottom line: if you decide that you like it, an x-trans can be bought for about $900 new plus an adapter.
In the end, I did sell the Nikon(s) and now I use the x-trans and an A7r - i've got the sony 55 and two fujinons but I use the 'other' primes most of the time. I ain't going back, but if there is a new body I may buy it again. Should I really need it for some reason, I can always rent one. Just don't sell your Leica, Zeiss or Canikon FF lenses.
M
-
Manoli - I really, really fancy a smaller camera to complement my lumpy/weighty kit. Been after something to replace my pocket 35mm film camera for 10+ years and now the market finally seems to be getting there.
The issue now is that I want an X-T1+ lenses and an OMD-1 + lenses and a SonyA7r + a couple of lenses as they are all really good cameras. ;D
I can't really justify them all for business reasons and girlfriend would have a fit if I bought even more kit whilst our house is being completely renovated. Plus a new computer would be of more use at the moment and am waiting for Apple to refresh the MBP range to decide where to spend my money.
-
I also like using f/1.4 in low light and getting useful DOF at that aperture. With the fast Voigtländers f/1.4 takes you into sweet spot territory...decreased corner falloff, improved contrast, resolution and saturation. As someone who has loved available darkness photography since film days with Delta 3200 these things are big pluses.
A very useful advantage. f1.4 on FF is actually too shallow for most people, most of the time anyway. F2.8 can be surprisingly little all DoF at times!
-
Er... BCooter has often mention how much he likes the shots from his OMDs and can be better to work with than his 1Dx
You've drawn an implicit parallel that's false. Would he like the OMDs even better if they had ALL the other qualities of the Olympus (the size advantages, the color rendering, the autofocus speed and accuracy, etc.) AND had the real estate of a FF sensor? I think he would. Maybe he'll tell us. But I doubt that he likes the Oly simply because the sensor is small.
-
1. You don't have to use big lenses. ;) I use my 5Ds with primes and a smaller camera body would actually improve balance.
2. The Sony A7 cameras are pretty darn tiny, so it's already started.
3. 35mm film cameras were mostly minute compared to today's equivalent sized sensor bodies. They coped.
1. You're absolutely right. Good for you. The large majority of people, however, use zooms, and they ain't small.
2. The Sony NEX cameras -- now discontinued -- were even smaller. But their lenses weren't.
3. I had every top-end Nikon camera between the F3 and F5, and they weren't small. I still have an F5, and I can't think it was much smaller than a D800. [Did a quick Google check: it appears that the D800 is about 7 ounces lighter than an F5.]
-
You've drawn an implicit parallel that's false. Would he like the OMDs even better if they had ALL the other qualities of the Olympus (the size advantages, the color rendering, the autofocus speed and accuracy, etc.) AND had the real estate of a FF sensor? I think he would. Maybe he'll tell us. But I doubt that he likes the Oly simply because the sensor is small.
I think he already has - see, amongst many others, post #18 above. It's not 'BECAUSE the sensor is small' , it's 'IN SPITE of the sensor being small'.
-
... I'd rather have the slightly too-small image than having to remove my large camera from my ass, where somebody stuck it after noticing what I was doing.
What WERE you doing ?
-
1. You're absolutely right. Good for you. The large majority of people, however, use zooms, and they ain't small.
But those who want small cameras may also want small lenses and those who do not can buy bigger bodies. The bit you seem to be missing is that people want options and that a lot of people are fed up with carrying heavy cameras with big lenses. Even pros.
2. The Sony NEX cameras -- now discontinued -- were even smaller. But their lenses weren't.
Except you were claiming that FF + APC cameras would not get that small, so that only adds more evidence to the fact your assertion was incorrect.
3. I had every top-end Nikon camera between the F3 and F5, and they weren't small. I still have an F5, and I can't think it was much smaller than a D800. [Did a quick Google check: it appears that the D800 is about 7 ounces lighter than an F5.]
Newsflash!! Cameras other than Nikon ones were available and could be pretty darn compact and even Nikon branded cameras could be a lot smaller than their 'top-end' models. Also of note, it's not like the 'top-end' cameras took better pictures or anything as they all used the same film with the same lenses.
Here's an F6 [apparently D700 size] next to an FM2.
(http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/NikonF5/background/F6FM2nsize.jpg)
Another point for you to consider. This may be a tricky one and you may need to sit down to take it in, as it could be a bit of a shock to you. Other people have different needs from you.
-
You've drawn an implicit parallel that's false. Would he like the OMDs even better if they had ALL the other qualities of the Olympus (the size advantages, the color rendering, the autofocus speed and accuracy, etc.) AND had the real estate of a FF sensor? I think he would.
Actually, BCooter has stated shallow DoF, the main reason people like FF cameras is overrated. And a small sensor's optical 'drawbacks' can be positives for some types of work.
Not even sure what your argument is. Some people are choosing these smaller cameras because they are different from tools that already possess.
Maybe he'll tell us. But I doubt that he likes the Oly simply because the sensor is small.
Uh, has anyone even argued that point?
-
I know a few people who have micro 4/3 stuff and they think that an OMD Full frame (ie 35mm FF) is a good idea
One has quite a collection of OM FF lenses too which I'm sure they could use on such a body.
-
I know a few people who have micro 4/3 stuff and they think that an OMD Full frame (ie 35mm FF) is a good idea
One has quite a collection of OM FF lenses too which I'm sure they could use on such a body.
Yup and me too.
Preferably the same size as the OM cameras and with the same huge viewfinder.
-
You see it all the time now, in commerce and art, a persons face and the background is a blur of blown out white blobs and that's not interesting, it's just stuff.
Thanks BC for the detailed and thoughtful reply. I also realized I was not being precise in my language. What I'm really after I think is not so much shallow DOF, but rather the wide-angle-shallow-DOF look (call it the "humans of new york" look, for lack of a better word, although I think he uses a 50mm).
If I'm correct that is the one area where m43 can't really keep up with bigger sensor formats. Obviously FF (or bigger) would be best from this, but to my eye APS-C can at least partially get there. Any thoughts on that specifically?
(P.S. Getting an XT1, 56mm and 23mm on rental so I'll be able to compare to my EM-5)
-
Thanks BC for the detailed and thoughtful reply. I also realized I was not being precise in my language. What I'm really after I think is not so much shallow DOF, but rather the wide-angle-shallow-DOF look (call it the "humans of new york" look, for lack of a better word, although I think he uses a 50mm).
Rarely wide angle at all. He just uses a wide aperture at times to reduce DoF and uses a 5D I believe.
If I'm correct that is the one area where m43 can't really keep up with bigger sensor formats. Obviously FF (or bigger) would be best from this, but to my eye APS-C can at least partially get there. Any thoughts on that specifically?
The DoF difference between FF and APSc is quite marked[with same lens/settings]. I had a crop sensor, never really liked it myself.
f4, which is not seen as wide on a FF still has noticeable fall off of DoF even with a 16mm - subject being relatively close that is. This DoF trait suits some people/jobs, but not others.
Even if you do not go to the ultra shallow DoF, FF looks different from smaller sensors unless you use quite small apertures.
This shot was taken with 16mm at f5. Subject is a little over a metre away, so not exactly close and she is clearly separated from backdrop by DoF or lack of. Bottom of shot is cropped off BTW to make it square.
.
-
Depends.
I've read reviews saying even FF users should forget about a 70-200mm f4 as it's not shallow enough DOF.
Yet I've not had any problems with my 70-210mm f4 Minolta getting decent OOF areas on a crop sensor (and I use it on FF 35mm too)
It's subjective APS-C is probably sufficient for shallow DOF control (subject to lenses used etc)
FF is obviously better by just over a stop
One reason Fuji have a new 56mm f1.2 (and it looks good from what I've seen) is to tip the balance for DOF control ie faster aperture. Same reason micro 4/3 users move to faster lenses to help with DOF control. Depends on what you do or want, but whilst I agree the APS-C to FF DOF difference is clear, I don't agree that its a massive as some suggest.
-
I found it made a difference. YMMV.
-
But those who want small cameras may also want small lenses and those who do not can buy bigger bodies. The bit you seem to be missing is that people want options and that a lot of people are fed up with carrying heavy cameras with big lenses.
Agreed about the desire for smaller lenses, but for many of us, the lens size advantage of a smaller format is compared to the comparable lenses needed with a larger format, and that advantage is greatest with the inherently bulky type of lenses: zooms and telephotos. Using an MFT body with 14-42 "pancake" zoom or 12-50 or 50-200 or 75-300 instead of a 35mm format body with 28-85 or 24-100 or 100-400 or 150-600 is a substantial downsizing; using a 25mm normal prime with 4/3" format or a 35mm with "APS-C" instead of a 50mm with 35mm format, not so much.
-
Agreed about the desire for smaller lenses, but for many of us, the lens size advantage of a smaller format is compared to the comparable lenses needed with a larger format, and that advantage is greatest with the inherently bulky type of lenses: zooms and telephotos. Using an MFT body with 14-42 "pancake" zoom or 12-50 or 50-200 or 75-300 instead of a 35mm format body with 28-85 or 24-100 or 100-400 or 150-600 is a substantial downsizing; using a 25mm normal prime with 4/3" format or a 35mm with "APS-C" instead of a 50mm with 35mm format, not so much.
Except I think you will find those looking for smaller kits are doing so because the advantage is actually significant. I looked at an OMD1 with a bunch of lenses and it took up the same or probably less space than my 5dII + 24-70mm.
An APS-C camera isn't much smaller than a FF camera, so is still a big huge compared to a M43. Also comparing to one specific lens combination is a bit irrelevant as so few people are ever going to just have a solitary standard lens. However there is still a big difference in size as seen below with an OMD1 and a 7D both with standard lenses, 25mm f1.8 and 35mm f2 respectively. Which kind of blows holes in your not much difference argument. :P
Before you point it out, I'm aware Canon make smaller APS-C cameras, but they are much, cheaper and will not exactly have the same purchaser as that of a £1200 body, so a 7D seemed the most likely comparison and even that is cheaper.
-
Using a 25mm normal prime with 4/3" format or a 35mm with "APS-C" instead of a 50mm with 35mm format, not so much.
Did a size comparison with some of the 'small' Canons too. Still much bigger.
-
EDIT: I have wandered off my original point, which was simply that users of zoom and telephoto lenses also get an attractive size advantage from a smaller format; maybe even more so than use of prime of most focal lengths: my "not so much" means "less" not "none".
I looked at an OMD1 with a bunch of lenses and it took up the same or probably less space than my 5dII + 24-70mm.
The 24-70mm is a zoom lens, which is part of the case I was talking about!
However there is still a big difference in size as seen below with an OMD1 and a 7D both with standard lenses, 25mm f1.8 and 35mm f2 respectively.
We are talking slightly at cross-purposes here: I was talking about the size advantage that comes purely from a smaller format; you are confounding it with the further size advantage (in both bodies and some lenses) of mirrorless vs SLR, which I certainly do not deny! Further that 35mm is a wide angle for 35mm format and with the large back-focus distance required by the 35mm format EF mount, which adds to its size problem compared to a 25mm normal for 4/3" format with no mirror clearance problems.
A better comparison of what I am talking about would come from MFT vs Fujifilm X vs Sony A7 with FE mount lenses ... if there were enough of the last for useful comparisons!
-
EDIT: I have wandered off my original point, which was simply that users of zoom and telephoto lenses also get an attractive size advantage from a smaller format; maybe even more so than use of prime of most focal lengths: my "not so much" means "less" not "none".
The 24-70mm is a zoom lens, which is part of the case I was talking about!We are talking slightly at cross-purposes here: I was talking about the size advantage that comes purely from a smaller format; you are confounding it with the further size advantage (in both bodies and some lenses) of mirrorless vs SLR, which I certainly do not deny! Further that 35mm is a wide angle for 35mm format and with the large back-focus distance required by the 35mm format EF mount, which adds to its size problem compared to a 25mm normal for 4/3" format with no mirror clearance problems.
A better comparison of what I am talking about would come from MFT vs Fujifilm X vs Sony A7 with FE mount lenses ... if there were enough of the last for useful comparisons!
Why not look at the size of the 35mm MF rangefinder lenses v all digital Mirrorless offerings?
You will see that the only way to get really small lenses is to make a smaller sensor (ie micro 4/3)
Or build a camera with a FF 35mm sensor and manual focus lenses, no in lens motors, no electronic aperture or OIS
The micro 4/3 lenses some of them are quite small and compact, but at a cost of sensor size.
If you want a bigger sensor, AF and in lens motors/IS in lenses you are not going to get small lenses.
This is the big problem for ILC makers, they can only offer somewhat smaller bodies v DSLR's, in the lens dept they can do very little (esp for APS-C and FF)
-
Barry,
We mostly agree, with the caveat that some (wide-angle) rangefinder lenses designed for film are not suitable for use with most electronic sensors, due to sending light to doe parts of the frame at highly off-perpendicualr angles. That is why I prefer to compare lenses designed for mirror-less digital cameras in various formats.
... the only way to get really small lenses is to make a smaller sensor (ie micro 4/3)
...
The micro 4/3 lenses some of them are quite small and compact, but at a cost of sensor size.
If you want a bigger sensor, AF and in lens motors/IS in lenses you are not going to get small lenses.
That is my point too: there are trade-offs, and with the inherent size advantages for smaller formats that we agree on, technological changes have made formats like 4/3" or "APS-C" the best balance for many (but not all) photographers and many (but not all) use cases where with film 35mm format or larger was the best balance, due to film's far worse tradeoffs of resolution vs sensitivity, etc.
-
All the designers can do is to try and make the combination of camera and lens as comfortable and as well balanced as possible. In other words improved ergonomics.
As has been noticed with Sigma, by the creative use of plastic lens material you can cut some weight,size and number of elements. But like with some small cameras, small lenses can just lead to fat finger syndrome. This type of construction does mean that you can now construct a medium size and weight lens at somewhat lower cost than previously.