Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Chrisso26 on August 27, 2014, 09:28:58 pm
-
Very informative and entertaining video (as usual).
On the Nikon/Cannon aspect, when you see a 'press pack' there is no evidence of mirrorless usage, it's all behemoth Nikon and Cannon systems. Is this because of the investment the press photographer has made in those systems, or is it a prejudice in the news organisations and press agencies?
On a specific mirrorless format…
I can't really afford more than one lens system, although I maintained m4/3rds (GH1) and Sony E mount (NEX7) for a few years. I mostly used legacy lenses (Leica M).
I think it is said you upgrade bodies from time to time, but hang on to good glass for years. I think Michael has made this point.
Apart from the M lenses, I bought a Voigtlander 25mm for the GH1 and lusted after the Zeiss E mount lenses for a long while. As you pointed out in the video, Sony discontinued the NEX line and confused me with the remaining lens mount choices. At the same time I bought a Blackmagic Pocket Camera (m4/3rds) for video. It is handy to own at least one or two native lenses for any system in my opinion, so it made sense in my circumstances to concentrate on m4/3rds lenses and ditch the Sony system.
Fuji looks sexy, also the Sony A7r that Michael so highly praises, but as a non-professional I can't justify both native FE mount and m4/3rds lens collections.
So my conclusion as to the choice of which mirrorless system to go with, it depends on the lenses you already own.
-
On the Nikon/Cannon aspect, when you see a 'press pack' there is no evidence of mirrorless usage, it's all behemoth Nikon and Cannon systems. Is this because of the investment the press photographer has made in those systems, or is it a prejudice in the news organisations and press agencies?
Some of it would be service related IMO.
Both Canon and Nikon have good after sales service for pro's here in Australia.
Money would come into it as well.
It's a big finical decision to switch systems.
Still very tempted to lighten up with some of that blingy little Sony gear.. ;)
-
Great video, enjoyed the camaraderie typical of Lula. Great to see Michael looking so well and vibrant again.
Gotta say, mirrorless has not been on my radar and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I've been patiently waiting for Canon to up their sensor density to match the Sony sensors.
I think the specialized superteles used by bird and wildlife photographers will be a niche needing standard DSLR bodies to remain in use for quite some time to come.
-
According to the article:
Fuji uses its own sensors
Fuji uses Sony's sensors. They do have their own color filter array, but the image sensor itself is a standard off-the-shelf Sony sensor.
Also, in the "The Others" section Pentax and Samsung were forgotten - though it's probably to just forget them anyhow ;)
-
Yes, it is a great, watchable, thought provoking video. It also illustrates my dilemma. I have long had Canon kit, and now have a 5D mk3 plus L series lenses. I also have a Fuji X-E1 with their lenses plus a Leica 35mm Summicron and the Fuji adaptor (I have just picked up a very good condition used X-E1 body for just the Summicron). For travel and general use, it has become a no brainer; I use the Fuji. I only print up to A3 (approx. 16.5" x 11.7") and I find the image quality excellent - the 23mm prime is great for portraits).
BUT... I also do wildlife and macro, and the 5D mk3 gives me great results. I am not sure that the Fuji would cope with a fast diving gannet folding its wings just about to enter the sea, but the Canon does. I also have a Canon 1:1 macro that works well for me; I do not believe Fuji has a 1:1 macro.
The upshot is that my dilemma is whether to sell my 24-105 and 17-40 Canon lenses and keep the 5D just for wildlife and for macro. If I do it will be a wrench, but bulk and weight are factors.
My conclusion from the video is that currently for wildlife, sports photography and big prints, the DLSR is still the tops, but for other uses Olympus, Panasonic and Fuji are the winners. For the reasons given in the video, and what users tell me, I will not consider Sony till it gets better and more lenses (despite what Michael says about Zeiss), and improves its ergonomics. By the way, I am a stills person - taking and processing video seems too much hassle for me.
Thanks again for a great video.
Jonathan
-
On the Nikon/Cannon aspect, when you see a 'press pack' there is no evidence of mirrorless usage, it's all behemoth Nikon and Cannon systems. Is this because of the investment the press photographer has made in those systems, or is it a prejudice in the news organisations and press agencies?
It's not prejudice, just investment in bodies / glass that have proved able to get the job done. If there was a fresh start, it might well be different, and in a few years' time too. But when they are not in that press pack environment, don't imagine that the same guys don't use mirrorless bodies for other types of work.
-
The Nex 7 I had was great. The menu was annoying (as Michael points out). It worked great with my Leica lenses, but with the crop factor I felt I needed to invest in a wider lens.
The Zeiss look fantastic, but I couldn't justify the expense after I bought the m4/3rds Blackmagic video camera. I'm about 50% each in terms of stills and video.
The point I'm making, and a point that didn't come up in the video, is how many lens systems are you being asked to maintain?
Yeah, I have quite a few adapters, but for auto functions it's just good to have the odd native lens. Albeit I generally work in full manual mode.
-
It's not prejudice, just investment in bodies / glass that have proved able to get the job done. If there was a fresh start, it might well be different, and in a few years' time too. But when they are not in that press pack environment, don't imagine that the same guys don't use mirrorless bodies for other types of work.
I was more talking about the newsrooms, not the photographers themselves.
I'm a musician, and there is prejudice against (perceived) prosumer gear in the music industry. Pro Tools, for example, is installed at most if not all major studios, even though other digital workstations are just as good.
-
I was more talking about the newsrooms, not the photographers themselves.
I'm a musician, and there is prejudice against (perceived) prosumer gear in the music industry. Pro Tools, for example, is installed at most if not all major studios, even though other digital workstations are just as good.
Sure, and they seem to use Macs too (let's not go there!). You were talking about the "press pack" and around London that's a mix of staffers and more and more freelancers. The newspapers, just like the photographers, have an investment in bodies / glass that have done the job. Prejudice doesn't come into it - though I don't dispute it exists and may be unfounded.
-
Thank you for the video guys. Your enthusiasm and love of photography puts a smile on my face!
Jonathan, I'm in a similar space.
I had a 1DSmkII and a 1DmkIII with a nice collection of lenses for shooting mostly wildlife and landscapes: 16-35, 24-105, 70-200 f4, 100-400 and 50 f1.4. And a Pentax MX-1 which is my "friends and family" camera :-)
I finally took a deep breath and sold the 1Ds and the 24-105 in order to finance a G6 with the 14-140, 100-300 and the 45mm macro. Here is the thing: for "friends and family" stuff, the G6 plus 14-140 is absolutely fine as far as I am concerned. And if you're into macro, the G6 plus 45mm is also perfectly fine, especially if you think how much weight you are saving! I'm getting to a certain age, where this matters a lot.
But it's not all wine and roses. The future is most definitely mirror-less, but the present is more of a mixed bag.
BIF photography with the G6 is really challenging. And it's not just the tracking AF (I used to manual focus in the old days, so adjusting my shooting style again is not going to kill me), but also the EVF black-out and the EVF and shutter lag. Of course these things will get sorted out in the next 5-7 years (faster CPUs, etc), but in the here and now, if a new birder/photographer asked me whether they should spend over £1,000 on a high end m43, I would have to advise them that they can save money and frustration by getting a second hand DSLR and a good lens.
And while we're on this thorny subject, the prices for quality m43 lenses is, I'm sorry to say, ludicrous in the UK. Why would I choose a Panasonic 35-100 at nearly £900, over a Canon 70-200 at £800?
I certainly hope that Sony, Panasonic, et al keep pushing the big boys in terms of performance and price. For now, I'm selling the Panasonic 100-300 and I'm pairing the G6 with the Canon 16-35 when I want to do landscapes (I know the combo sounds/looks ridiculous but it does work very nicely and my back is very grateful indeed).
-
I like the ergonomics of DSLRs. Teensy camera bodies don't feel right in the hands.
-
I like the ergonomics of DSLRs. Teensy camera bodies don't feel right in the hands.
you mean for example full of controls plastic Canon Kiss dSLR vs metal E-M1 or GH4 dSLM, right ::) ?
-
And while we're on this thorny subject, the prices for quality m43 lenses is, I'm sorry to say, ludicrous in the UK. Why would I choose a Panasonic 35-100 at nearly £900, over a Canon 70-200 at £800?
size & weight for example... and no need to tune AF... and you do not need to buy that in UK either
-
Fuji uses Sony's sensors.
so did chipworks dissassembled any Fuji so far ?
-
I like the ergonomics of DSLRs. Teensy camera bodies don't feel right in the hands.
My Fujis are about the same size as my old 35mm film cameras, which seemed a good size at the time. My new Canon 5D Mark III dwarfs my Canon F1n, not to mention the size difference in lenses.
-
Alright I was not going to say anything, but not to put the Olympus E-M1 on the table is horrible. Yes horrible. That camera has so many great lenses and what is coming is amazing. There is also the splash proof right not, not coming as on the X-T1. I have both cameras and pick up the Olympus most of the time. You have image stabilization in the body and also if you want in the lenses. Hey guys why did you leave out the poor Olympus, with the touch screen commands and so many other features.
-
We mentioned the Olympus and it would have been on the table if we had it with us, since both of us own it. We mention it and I certainly mention it in the text of the article plus mention the new lenses that are coming.
Kevin
-
We mentioned the Olympus and it would have been on the table if we had it with us, since both of us own it. We mention it and I certainly mention it in the text of the article plus mention the new lenses that are coming.
Kevin
Aaaaah! What new lenses? Do I need to hide my checkbook?
-
I have no doubt that over time there will be different camera models to choose from. When the mirror less model has achieved parity with the DSLR in terms of auto focus then it will move fast. When that is, is nevertheless much less certain despite progress made over the last few years.
I have to smile at the comparisons made in this video between so different lenses that it is ridiculous. Both of the gentlemen sitting in front of the camera know very well that this is not a like for like comparison at all. How does a Nikon D800E with a huge Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 compare to a Sony A7R with a 24-70 f/4 lens compare? The Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 is one of the largest of the kind and heavy (and this lens is actually not that great either). Look at the attached weight comparison of Sony, Canon and Nikon in very comparable models. The difference is rather small and not huge. If 300 grams breaks somebody's back, well they should choose something entirely different :)
Comparing f/2.8 or f/4 lenses on 35mm full frame with similar lenses made for micro 4/3 is also not a like for like comparison since the DOF is vastly different.
What would stop Canon or Nikon from making a mirror less camera body that fits the normal EF or F mount? With a camera body of the same weight as the Sony the system weight would become at parity.
Look at what Canon has done with the EOS 70D. What are they working on? Well, I don't think either Canon or Nikon engineers are dumb, so they are working on making an auto focus system that can compete in speed (and accuracy) with the mirror based phase detection auto focus found on DSLR's. So when they have achieved the technology it would be absolutely straight forward to make a camera body that is mirror less and fits the existing lenses. What a huge advantage over Sony!! Maybe in the meantime Sony has come up with a new idea and left the A7 behind?
Making an entirely new lens mount and a new body like Sony did, Canon and Nikon could do overnight after having done the first mirror less model that fits the existing lens line. They would then have to launch an entirely new lens line for that body which would take years to make, just like Sony takes years to make that and just like Sony leave customers in doubt of this new line. Btw. Canon has a mirror less body that fits the EF mount, it's just not that great yet and APS-C also.
Is micro 4/3 cameras a competition to full frame in IQ and resolution? Surely not.
I don't believe like the authors of this video that neither Canon nor Nikon are ostriche's with their heads buried in the sand.
The statistics on sales mentioned is not convincing either. To me what the sales curves says is basically that mirror less has been flat for two years and that DSLR sales has been going up and down. Twice the sales has been on the same level! Is there a trend? I can't see it. Do I believe there will be a change in the next 5-10 years? Of course, but to me it is much less clear what that would be. Who would have predicted that the low end of the market had collapsed and left all to smart phones 5-10 years ago? I didn't hear any predicting that.
-
The professional sector has got to be a tiny minority in terms of purchasing.
Sydney is a major tourist hub, and as I walk around I've been (admittedly) surprised at the increasing amount of tourists holding up a tablet or smartphone to snap a group shot or local landmark.
Other than that, you mostly see Fuji/Nex sized bodies around the necks of tourists. On the odd occasion I come across a tourist lugging a Nikon or Canon body around, with a zoom the size of a wine bottle, I gotta admit I presume they are mad.
-
The professional sector has got to be a tiny minority in terms of purchasing.
Sydney is a major tourist hub, and as I walk around I've been (admittedly) surprised at the increasing amount of tourists holding up a tablet or smartphone to snap a group shot or local landmark.
Other than that, you mostly see Fuji/Nex sized bodies around the necks of tourists. On the odd occasion I come across a tourist lugging a Nikon or Canon body around, with a zoom the size of a wine bottle, I gotta admit I presume they are mad.
Is that your way of challenging the sales statistics? It's not only professionals that purchase DSLR's and the majority were never purchased by professionals. I could walk down the streets of Copenhagen and not see a single DSLR and conclude that all pictures are taken with a smart phone :D
-
Very entertaining video! Thank you!
There are a lot of theories online about the origin of the Fuji sensor. It really would be good to finally know the truth...
-
Making an entirely new lens mount and a new body like Sony did, Canon and Nikon could do overnight after having done the first mirror less model that fits the existing lens line. They would then have to launch an entirely new lens line for that body which would take years to make
they did launch already if you didn't notice... Nikon 1 and EOS-M... were you asleep ? you do not really need to launch w/ dozens of lenses - nobody in dSLM world started with many lenses for new mounts - neither m43 nor Sony nor minor/obscure players like Samsung, Fuji, Ricoh/Pentax (not counting Leica - it is not a new mount).
-
Is that your way of challenging the sales statistics? It's not only professionals that purchase DSLR's and the majority were never purchased by professionals. I could walk down the streets of Copenhagen and not see a single DSLR and conclude that all pictures are taken with a smart phone :D
Hey…. it's a friendly debate. I honestly could care less who uses DSLR's and who uses smartphones. I just mentioned two things I personally see…..
1) The press gallery exclusively seems to use large body Nikon and Canon systems.
2) The majority of tourists in Sydney are carrying a small mirrorless or just using a phone or tablet.
It really isn't a crime to state your observations, especially as they somewhat chime with the views expressed in the video.
-
In my eight days at Grand Canyon National Park last March I saw less than ten SLRs. In fact I saw more folks taking pics with iPads than with SLRs. Smartphones totally dominated. Next were compacts and (mostly Sony NEX) mirrorless. The strong presence of Asian & European tour groups may've had some impact on the scarcity of SLRs…but this summer on my frequent nature trail walks in the greater Detroit area I've seen noticeably more mirrorless cameras in use than last year. I spotted two Sony A7rs for sure this past Saturday in addition to a gal using one of the big white Canon teles with what I think was a Sony and another shooting video with a Panasonic GH model. Things are changing, even in the US.
-Dave-
-
Thanks for the video!
It's just great to have more options and to be able to reach higher levels of quality in smaller packages. Too bad for Nikon and Canon if they keep misunderstanding what the market needs.
As far as I am concerned, I'll soon be the owner of a Sony a5100 that will replace my Nikon 1 gear (the 1 still has the best AF, some unique features, but image quality is in the end too much of a compromise still). I find the a5100 to be the best compromise right now for an easy to carry, high end compact substitute with usable AF and excellent image quality.
When I go somewhere to take pictures, I still see nothing beating the D810 and its bulk is not a problem for me. Its flying domain is still hard to beat, ranging from T/S lenses, the very best primes and superb long lenses for low light action such as the 300mm f2.8. Low to high ISO image quality also doesn't impose any practical compromise for real world applications, it can take rain and snow without concerns, its double memory card set up ensures that image loss is never a concern,...
It wouldn't make sense to like big for the sake of big, but I don't see right now why I should compromise on quality/abilities to favor small when big isn't big enough that it becomes a problem. Now, I understand that I probably belong to a minority and that a growing majority of people see small as an ever increasingly important feature.
I just hope that Nikon and Canon decide to use the financial capacity/credibility they still have today to continue to push the high end DSLR envelope AND to add relevant mirrorless offerings in parallel to those. The only reason being that I am heavily invested in F mount lenses and really like the glass I am using. Some of it is MF and would work just as well on bodies from other makes with a shorter flange distance, some of it is AF and needs a Nikon body.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I like the ergonomics of DSLRs. Teensy camera bodies don't feel right in the hands.
I have large hands and have never had a camera feel so good and useable in my hand as the E-M1. It's a great one-handed camera (with the 12-40 Pro zoom). You should try it.
-
they did launch already if you didn't notice... Nikon 1 and EOS-M... were you asleep ? you do not really need to launch w/ dozens of lenses - nobody in dSLM world started with many lenses for new mounts - neither m43 nor Sony nor minor/obscure players like Samsung, Fuji, Ricoh/Pentax (not counting Leica - it is not a new mount).
Did I mentioned the EOS-M already? Yes, I did. The Nikon-1 is a (very) small sensor and neither really a contender. Were you asleep while your read my post? ;)
-
Thanks for the video!
It's just great to have more options and to be able to reach higher levels of quality in smaller packages. Too bad for Nikon and Canon if they keep misunderstanding what the market needs.
As far as I am concerned, I'll soon be the owner of a Sony a5100 that will replace my Nikon 1 gear (the 1 still has the best AF, some unique features, but image quality is in the end too much of a compromise still). I find the a5100 to be the best compromise right now for an easy to carry, high end compact substitute with usable AF and excellent image quality.
When I go somewhere to take pictures, I still see nothing beating the D810 and its bulk is not a problem for me. Its flying domain is still hard to beat, ranging from T/S lenses, the very best primes and superb long lenses for low light action such as the 300mm f2.8. Low to high ISO image quality also doesn't impose any practical compromise for real world applications, it can take rain and snow without concerns, its double memory card set up ensures that image loss is never a concern,...
It wouldn't make sense to like big for the sake of big, but I don't see right now why I should compromise on quality/abilities to favor small when big isn't big enough that it becomes a problem. Now, I understand that I probably belong to a minority and that a growing majority of people see small as an ever increasingly important feature.
I just hope that Nikon and Canon decide to use the financial capacity/credibility they still have today to continue to push the high end DSLR envelope AND to add relevant mirrorless offerings in parallel to those. The only reason being that I am heavily invested in F mount lenses and really like the glass I am using. Some of it is MF and would work just as well on bodies from other makes with a shorter flange distance, some of it is AF and needs a Nikon body.
Cheers,
Bernard
I was considering for a while to add a smaller camera and thought about the Olympus OMD, the Fuji XT-1 or even similar smaller bodies until I realized that this was not going to change that much compared to taking e.g. a Canon 5D mkIII and the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II over the shoulder when walking a city when I had my gear with me anyway. What I needed and wanted was a much smaller camera that I could put into my pocket without a photo bag at all. I decided on the Sony RX100 mkIII. And it is a real companion to my DSLR's (Canon 5D III and Nikon D810/D800E). Although the IQ is good it is nowhere near the DSLR quality, of course, but good enough for the casual shots that it is intended to do.
I do think the both Canon and Nikon engineers are having prototypes of high-end mirror less cameras in their labs and working on replacing the mirror box with air. The main advantage a slightly small form factor and weight and durability. But battery life would be challenged. For sports and wild life shooters there could be advantages too when the negatives have been engineered out of the way. To call Canon and Nikon dino's is a great misunderstanding of the realities.
A revolution? I have some difficulty to see this is a real revolution. It's more like en evolution since the cameras kind of look the same, have interchangeable lenses but lack a mirror box. The only contender for the highend DSLR's and only non action is the Sony A7R and we are still waiting for a decent lens lineup. And do we trust that Sony will stick to the full frame E-mount and further develop this? How was it that Sony reacted to the shutter shake issues that have been brought up by many reviewers and users and clearly demonstrated as an issue? Well they reacted like Canon and Nikon used to react: Silence.
When do we see a real revolution? The smart phone was a revolution in how people shoot pictures and share them. It wiped out the bottom end of the camera industry in stand alone cameras, just like many other stand alone gadgets have been wiped out since they are no longer needed. And wiped out entire companies as well. This was a revolution!
-
Hey…. it's a friendly debate. I honestly could care less who uses DSLR's and who uses smartphones. I just mentioned two things I personally see…..
1) The press gallery exclusively seems to use large body Nikon and Canon systems.
2) The majority of tourists in Sydney are carrying a small mirrorless or just using a phone or tablet.
It really isn't a crime to state your observations, especially as they somewhat chime with the views expressed in the video.
Sure :) But you referred to people carrying a DSLR in a less than respectful way. When you refer to tourists, what would the situation have been 5 years ago? Probably a lot of the tourists would have carried mirror less cameras at that time as well. They were just called point and shoot and various forms. I do agree that the bottom end of the DSLR market where people buy a low end DSLR with a single lens like have and will be replaced by a smaller system, but that could as well be a camera with a larger sensor and a single lens like the Canon G1X II which has good IQ and is very portable although not pocketable.
But my point was, as you could see in my response, that tourists in Sydney hardly is statistics for the market of DSLR's versus mirror less interchangeable systems.
I do think that many who would have bought an entry level DSLR with a kit lens and nothing else would later consider a different camera.
Another questions is: Who was the video intended for? Was it the LuLa audience who are supposed to be interested in photography and enthusiasts and some professionals? If yes, then I think the discussion is not about tourists in the Sydney harbor, but about how the enthusiast market develops. I run photo workshops and have so since 2008 and my statistics over several hundred participants in these workshops is although not statistically significant for any conclusions: Up and until last year, the majority were Canon and Nikon DSLR shooters with a number of good lenses. A few had a mirror less camera with a couple of lenses or an all in one camera. A few had medium format cameras like Pentax 645D, Hassy and Phase One. This year 3 came with a Sony A7R, one Fuji XT-1, one Olympus OMD, two Pentax K3 and the rest were Canon and Nikon and a single Sony DSLR. The ones who camera with the A7R all had another system with them. The Sony's were only used on the side and not as the main camera. There is no doubt that the Sony has had and will have an impact on the enthusiast market, but it is still too early to judge how real this is. I have seen a couple who sold their DSLR's and bought a Fuji XT-1 system or Olympus OMD. I doubt that there will be a wholesale give-up on the DSLR in this segment of the market. For the DSLR's for landscape shooting I do recommend to shoot them as mirror less (in live view) since Canon has EFC shutter and now also Nikon with the D810. So there is nothing to stop a landscape shooter from going mirror less if the IQ is there and the lenses are there. Sony does not quite deliver on this at the moment, but in a year from they probably have fixed the EFC shutter problem on the A7R with a A7R II with the same sensor as the D810 and a lens lineup that is challenging the lenses like Canon 16-35 f/4L IS, Nikon 14-24 f/2.8, Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR, Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II and Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. So in this segment the only contender is Sony, not Pentax, not Olympus, not Panasonic and not Fuji. Unless, of course, you don't print big. Or want to be prepared for 4K and 8K displays and especially the latter will challenge the resolution of todays smaller systems. The could in the future be entirely new display technology like projectors that could support 8K resolution.
-
Hans, I think your point about shooting a DSLR as mirrorless will seal the deal in the end. The potential for higher quality without the mirror and electronic aid in liveview or EVF will make the mirrorbox completely redundant for a lot of people.
-
Hans, I think your point about shooting a DSLR as mirrorless will seal the deal in the end. The potential for higher quality without the mirror and electronic aid in liveview or EVF will make the mirrorbox completely redundant for a lot of people.
Yes, for landscapes this is my recommendation, but when I shoot birds with my Canon 500 f/4L IS I definitely enjoy the fast autofocus of the Canon 5D mkIII :) For action also similar I need the fast AF on the DSLR. That's the status quo for me.
-
Sure :)and the rest were Canon and Nikon
I have different uses for cameras, especially the mirrorless type, than what's mentioned in this video
Our use is nearly always a combination of stills and video.
Since video requires more accessories, like a cage, a preamp, sometimes external power, using a camera like the gh4 vs. the 70d the size/weight advantage for me is not that much different.
In fact, after using our RED 1's and scarlet so often now anything under 12 pounds feels lightweight.
I went with the gh3's because they offered decent video and for some scenes in video good autofocus tracking, pretty good for stills.
Later bought the olympus omd em5 and em1, just because I wanted to. The em5 producing a better still file but the em-1 a much better camera.
But the kicker on the smaller 4/3 cameras is the small sensor. I don't want 100% blurred background focus, but do want to be able to control the look and separate the main subject and the 4/3 cameras are difficult to do that with.
So for our current project we are shooting with the 70d for motion imagery, my 1dx for stills as it uses the same lens set and our RED scarlet with a Canon mount once again to use the same lens set.
Bottom line the 4/3's stay in the case and so far I've only used them for scenes with car mounts.
I wanted very much to go wit the Sony A series, the 7s and 7R as I felt they would give me the best of both worlds, high quality stills and decent video but passed due to the lack of tracking focuses on both cameras and the fact the 7s in video will skew with jello effect way too easily.
Personally, the best camera of the lot, which is more of a hybrid than mirrorless is the 70d because with an apsc format the skew is less than full frame, the video follow focus is good, high iso to around 1200 or 1600 in a pinch is fine as long as I grade in Resolve.
What made the 70d come alive is the technicolor profile which gets very close to matching my set up with the RED's.
The only issue of the 70d is not skewing or detail at 2k, but the line skipping shows alassing on background subjects like fence rails that have strong horizontal or vertical lines. That's the beauty of shooting the 4k reds or anything at 2.5k and above, is that alassing disappears.
Granted it's not fair to compare a $900 70d to a $18,000 RED but since 2.5 k would not be much of a leap it doesn't make any sense that they don't use more of the sensor to cut down on alassing.
Given all of this, I find mirrorless to be in the early stages. The olympus em-1 is probably one of the finest cameras I've ever used and has a wonderful feel in the hand, beautiful stabilization, awful track focusing and no controls over the video settings.
The gh3 is good with track focus in stills and video, but anything over 800 iso is a snow storm, plus the fact that the lenses really need to be f1.2 at maximum to get a cinematic focus throw.
I really don't think mirrorless is at the professional level yet though the possibilities are there.
If only you could combine the attributes of all the cameras you'd have something special.
The build quality, tactile feel and in body stabilization of the olympus, the track focus of the panasonic gh3/4, the high iso of the Sony a7s, the menu and ease of use of the 70d along with an apsc sensor.
That and good preamps, a touch screen lcd , . . even a port to add a second larger lcd with all functions would be great for a second assistant to hold and perform touch screen focus while you worked.
Personally I think on a professional level, Canon is deeply in the game. The 70d is lightweight and the video intercuts well with the RED footage, the stills are more than acceptable or professional work.
Canon lens lineup is huge and you can find and buy or rent Canon lenses anyplace in the world.
My only complaint with Canon is I would like them to employ the dual pixel setup on a camera with 2.5 to 4k in a super 35mm or apsc format, to kill the alassing.
The 1dc for it's feature set is too high priced, the c series get's into RED territory to go to 4k, but given that Canon's lineup and user base is so large, that I don't think any smaller 4/3 is going to greatly effect them.
The interesting thing is our 4'3 camera case and Canon case weigh virtually the same, as both are identical think tanks. Sure the Canons are larger but as I mentioned fully kitted out, not that much difference.
The only issue I have with Canons of all stripes is the manual focus lens rotation. My brain is hardwired for Nikon and I can pick up a ZF lens and manually track focus immediately, with the Canons I always have to do a run through.
The one thing I've known since digital replaced film was if I could only carry one case, stills and motion, there is nothing in our portfolio I couldn't shoot with our Canons. The 1dx autofocus in stills, especially tracking borders on amazing, the fact that a 5d2/3 or 1dx can shoot video in a pinch is just an added bonus.
IMO
BC
-
size & weight for example... and no need to tune AF... and you do not need to buy that in UK either
The non-IS 70-200 is bigger but fairly light so I'll stick with it... I've only ever had AF-tuning issues with the 24-105 (a lens I've never fancied anyway)... I try to buy second hand as much as possible: the Canon used market-place has some superb bargains.
For my money/needs, it would be impossible to go full-on mirrorless right now as much as I would love to. On the plus side, by the time I hit 55-60, I'm sure there will be some superb (and light) mirorrless cameras out there to help me maintain my BIF habit :)
On a slightly different but sort-of related topic: I would love to know how folk feel about the Canon SL1/100D? Is it the dawn of a new age (small and light DSLR / mirrorless slayer) or just a mutant dinosaur?
-
This thread has grown quickly since my earlier post so Kevin's and Michael's video has obviously got a reaction. One point about which I have seen little concerns what people do with their images. To me, for wildlife and sports photography, when fast movement is being captured, the DSLR is still the tops. As was said in the video, DLSRs are good also for large prints. High pixel count with good IQ is also needed if significant cropping is required.
BUT... how many still print images routinely? Many people I know use an electronic display. An iPad with a retina screen is often thought to be sufficient or uploads to the web are made. I was part of a group of photographers who went on a trip to the islands on the west coast of Scotland this summer photographing landscapes, wildlife and macro. We are all experienced photographers with DLSRs and multiple good lenses. How are we going to show each other what we have shot? We will get together with a laptop and projector. The alternative to electronic viewing among many I know is to produce a book. How necessary is it to have 24 or 36 mega pixels for a 12" book?
When using electronic viewing (except for viewing a still of a moving object like a dolphin or diving gannet) or looking in a photo book, I find it very difficult to tell the difference between images from a DLSR and a good APS CSC. Size and bulk do matter to me, and I now use the latter more often than my 5D mk3.
-
I have no doubt that over time there will be different camera models to choose from. When the mirror less model has achieved parity with the DSLR in terms of auto focus then it will move fast. When that is, is nevertheless much less certain despite progress made over the last few years.
I have to smile at the comparisons made in this video between so different lenses that it is ridiculous. Both of the gentlemen sitting in front of the camera know very well that this is not a like for like comparison at all. How does a Nikon D800E with a huge Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 compare to a Sony A7R with a 24-70 f/4 lens compare? The Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 is one of the largest of the kind and heavy (and this lens is actually not that great either). Look at the attached weight comparison of Sony, Canon and Nikon in very comparable models. The difference is rather small and not huge. If 300 grams breaks somebody's back, well they should choose something entirely different :)
Comparing f/2.8 or f/4 lenses on 35mm full frame with similar lenses made for micro 4/3 is also not a like for like comparison since the DOF is vastly different.
What would stop Canon or Nikon from making a mirror less camera body that fits the normal EF or F mount? With a camera body of the same weight as the Sony the system weight would become at parity.
Look at what Canon has done with the EOS 70D. What are they working on? Well, I don't think either Canon or Nikon engineers are dumb, so they are working on making an auto focus system that can compete in speed (and accuracy) with the mirror based phase detection auto focus found on DSLR's. So when they have achieved the technology it would be absolutely straight forward to make a camera body that is mirror less and fits the existing lenses. What a huge advantage over Sony!! Maybe in the meantime Sony has come up with a new idea and left the A7 behind?
Making an entirely new lens mount and a new body like Sony did, Canon and Nikon could do overnight after having done the first mirror less model that fits the existing lens line. They would then have to launch an entirely new lens line for that body which would take years to make, just like Sony takes years to make that and just like Sony leave customers in doubt of this new line. Btw. Canon has a mirror less body that fits the EF mount, it's just not that great yet and APS-C also.
Is micro 4/3 cameras a competition to full frame in IQ and resolution? Surely not.
I don't believe like the authors of this video that neither Canon nor Nikon are ostriche's with their heads buried in the sand.
The statistics on sales mentioned is not convincing either. To me what the sales curves says is basically that mirror less has been flat for two years and that DSLR sales has been going up and down. Twice the sales has been on the same level! Is there a trend? I can't see it. Do I believe there will be a change in the next 5-10 years? Of course, but to me it is much less clear what that would be. Who would have predicted that the low end of the market had collapsed and left all to smart phones 5-10 years ago? I didn't hear any predicting that.
You can't use one of those giant monster dslrs to do good street work. Sure it can be done, but why make things hard on yourself. I sometimes have to hand carry my cam all day and part of the night. I seldom use my dslr's anymore except for sports.
-
Is that your way of challenging the sales statistics? It's not only professionals that purchase DSLR's and the majority were never purchased by professionals. I could walk down the streets of Copenhagen and not see a single DSLR and conclude that all pictures are taken with a smart phone :D
Camera fondlers keep the market afloat. As soon as they have a few more mp they off looking to buy the next magic bullet.
-
I was considering for a while to add a smaller camera and thought about the Olympus OMD, the Fuji XT-1 or even similar smaller bodies until I realized that this was not going to change that much compared to taking e.g. a Canon 5D mkIII and the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II over the shoulder when walking a city when I had my gear with me anyway. What I needed and wanted was a much smaller camera that I could put into my pocket without a photo bag at all. I decided on the Sony RX100 mkIII. And it is a real companion to my DSLR's (Canon 5D III and Nikon D810/D800E). Although the IQ is good it is nowhere near the DSLR quality, of course, but good enough for the casual shots that it is intended to do.
I do think the both Canon and Nikon engineers are having prototypes of high-end mirror less cameras in their labs and working on replacing the mirror box with air. The main advantage a slightly small form factor and weight and durability. But battery life would be challenged. For sports and wild life shooters there could be advantages too when the negatives have been engineered out of the way. To call Canon and Nikon dino's is a great misunderstanding of the realities.
A revolution? I have some difficulty to see this is a real revolution. It's more like en evolution since the cameras kind of look the same, have interchangeable lenses but lack a mirror box. The only contender for the highend DSLR's and only non action is the Sony A7R and we are still waiting for a decent lens lineup. And do we trust that Sony will stick to the full frame E-mount and further develop this? How was it that Sony reacted to the shutter shake issues that have been brought up by many reviewers and users and clearly demonstrated as an issue? Well they reacted like Canon and Nikon used to react: Silence.
When do we see a real revolution? The smart phone was a revolution in how people shoot pictures and share them. It wiped out the bottom end of the camera industry in stand alone cameras, just like many other stand alone gadgets have been wiped out since they are no longer needed. And wiped out entire companies as well. This was a revolution!
I wish Fuji, Canon or Nikon would make a Leica knockoff for $3000. Also a FF 6mp back for the SWC Hassy for $3000. And throw in a 24mp organic sensor of the Fuji X. Those are the only things lacking on my want list.
-
Kevin I know you have mentioned the Olympus a lot and that excellent video you took in Zion is one of the most impressive. My 800E is still here and if I am shooting some serious stuff that is with me. But with a bad shoulder, bad knees and age, what I get from the smaller cameras is still great and I am not printing as large as some of what you guys do.
-
Nice video, and very illustrative. I think it is very positive that we have so many choices today. I also think that I am lucky not to be shooting sports, wildlife, or anything that still requires a DSLR. This means I can now fully enjoy the benefits (aka small size and weight) of a CSC system. I am now fully embedded into the Olympus micro 43 system for my landscapes, travel, and documentary photography. I only require 3 lenses, and I have the Oly 12 f2, Panaleica 25 f1.4, and Oly 75 f1.8. I can carry all this in a small shoulder bag, no problems. I am amazed at what the potential of these little cameras and lenses can deliver.
I too am waiting for the development of the Sony A7 series, how will it mature? In the video, there is talk about how the Sony FE lenses are comparable to the Nikon f2.8 lens showed, but indeed the former are f4 lenses; were Sony ever to produce f2.8 zooms for the FE mount, they would be about the same size as the Nikon or Canon counterparts. In fact, I was in my local dealer today, and saw the Zeiss FE 24-70 f4 and Sony 70-200 f4 lenses; they are not smaller than their Canon or Nikon equivalents, and to be honest, they look too big on the little Sony A7 cameras.
But since I use primes, I can see myself using a Sony A7 in a few years, when there is a trio of the good old fashioned 24-50-85/100mm lenses.
-
Of all the cameras mentioned. only the Sony A7 and the DSLRs deal well with dynamic range which is, to me, the single greatest drawback to the smaller sensors. For street shooting, where it doesn't matter quite so much, I'll always grab one of my Panny m4/3, but when I know it will count, I will always go for the larger sensor. Even an APS-C is quite superior to the m4/3rds cameras at this state of the art. But I will say that my knees, legs, back and age are rapidly beginning to trump sensor size with the concomitant lens size and weight.
-
I embraced the mirrorless cameras when they first appeared on the market since their compactness and light weight were ideal for the type of photography I do (travel, backpacking/hiking). However, I was initially disappointed by the limited dynamic range and the difficulty I had in focusing manually "by wire".
Last year all these problems were solved for me when I got my Sony RX1 and I've never looked back since. I have never had a camera that was as easy to customize or use as this camera is. Initially I was not sure if I would like being limited to a single lens, but in practice I am now focused more on being creative with what I have, and I spend less time obsessing about the gear.
-
Sure :) But you referred to people carrying a DSLR in a less than respectful way.
Err, how? Because I feel sorry for them lugging all that weight around?
Another questions is: Who was the video intended for? Was it the LuLa audience who are supposed to be interested in photography and enthusiasts and some professionals? If yes, then I think the discussion is not about tourists in the Sydney harbor, but about how the enthusiast market develops.
You seem to be irked more by the video than by me.
I'm not really interested in fighting over DSLR's. I don't own one, but at the same time I'm perfectly happy for other photographers to use them.
I thought the points made in the video were interesting and thought provoking. That's all.
-
Michael,
in the video you say something along the lines "man the Zeiss lenses for the sony are so good". Now I have the FE 24-70 f/4 and I have to disagree here. At 24mm my copy is just plain bad. 2/3 out to the borders the images gets terribly soft and in the corners of the frame there is really nothing left you could call an image. The softness is symetric on all sides /corners, so I believe the lens is properly centered. Whats even more frustrating is that stopping down does not make a difference at all. The lens is just as bad at f/8 as it is at f/4. When zooming in, the border and corner softness somewhat eases, but stays unsatisfactory for most of the focal range. At first I thought I was doing something wrong here or had a defective copy, but when photozone tested the lens and came to the same conclusions, I am now lead to beleive the lens is just designed badly. Now you make this statement how good the zeiss lenses are with the fe 24-70 mounted to your 7r. Have you made a different experience? is your copy better than those tested out there?
Addiding to that: I beleive the mirrorless reviolution will not succeed without good quality fullframe lenses. I bought my A7 with a hope to replace my 5DIII 24/105 combo. I do lots of big size gallery prints and the 24-105 is very adaquete for this. For the Sony there is however no standard af zoom which can reach the (not perfect) quality of Canons 24-105. This is VERY frustrating.
Can you maybe elaborate a bit more on your experience with the fe 24-70, so that I can judge wheter it makes sense to test a different sample? Thanks!
-
@ jenbenn, here's a good thread and multiple references on the 24-70 : http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/50256-excellent-review-zeiss-24-70-f4.html (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/50256-excellent-review-zeiss-24-70-f4.html).
In short, there's quite a big sample variation (ugh Sony, get your QA/QC in order, I think there's lots of room for improvement there) and the lens is best in the middle of the range and worst at the two extremes.
-
Michael,
in the video you say something along the lines "man the Zeiss lenses for the sony are so good". Now I have the FE 24-70 f/4 and I have to disagree here. At 24mm my copy is just plain bad. 2/3 out to the borders the images gets terribly soft and in the corners of the frame there is really nothing left you could call an image. The softness is symetric on all sides /corners, so I believe the lens is properly centered. Whats even more frustrating is that stopping down does not make a difference at all. The lens is just as bad at f/8 as it is at f/4. When zooming in, the border and corner softness somewhat eases, but stays unsatisfactory for most of the focal range. At first I thought I was doing something wrong here or had a defective copy, but when photozone tested the lens and came to the same conclusions, I am now lead to beleive the lens is just designed badly. Now you make this statement how good the zeiss lenses are with the fe 24-70 mounted to your 7r. Have you made a different experience? is your copy better than those tested out there?
Addiding to that: I beleive the mirrorless reviolution will not succeed without good quality fullframe lenses. I bought my A7 with a hope to replace my 5DIII 24/105 combo. I do lots of big size gallery prints and the 24-105 is very adaquete for this. For the Sony there is however no standard af zoom which can reach the (not perfect) quality of Canons 24-105. This is VERY frustrating.
Can you maybe elaborate a bit more on your experience with the fe 24-70, so that I can judge wheter it makes sense to test a different sample? Thanks!
My guess is there are two issues here.
1.Sony is desperate to sell the FE system on compact size, even if it means significant compromises in image quality.
2.The very small flange distance(much smaller than even the M system) of the FE mount is creating issues with the digital sensor that idealy would need lens designs larger than an SLR system but issue #1 is standing in the way of this. Note that the only really high quality performer on the FE system so far is the 55mm 1.8 that's quite large for its specs.
-
Michael,
in the video you say something along the lines "man the Zeiss lenses for the sony are so good". Now I have the FE 24-70 f/4 and I have to disagree here. At 24mm my copy is just plain bad. 2/3 out to the borders the images gets terribly soft and in the corners of the frame there is really nothing left you could call an image. The softness is symetric on all sides /corners, so I believe the lens is properly centered. Whats even more frustrating is that stopping down does not make a difference at all. The lens is just as bad at f/8 as it is at f/4. When zooming in, the border and corner softness somewhat eases, but stays unsatisfactory for most of the focal range. At first I thought I was doing something wrong here or had a defective copy, but when photozone tested the lens and came to the same conclusions, I am now lead to beleive the lens is just designed badly. Now you make this statement how good the zeiss lenses are with the fe 24-70 mounted to your 7r. Have you made a different experience? is your copy better than those tested out there?
Addiding to that: I beleive the mirrorless reviolution will not succeed without good quality fullframe lenses. I bought my A7 with a hope to replace my 5DIII 24/105 combo. I do lots of big size gallery prints and the 24-105 is very adaquete for this. For the Sony there is however no standard af zoom which can reach the (not perfect) quality of Canons 24-105. This is VERY frustrating.
Can you maybe elaborate a bit more on your experience with the fe 24-70, so that I can judge wheter it makes sense to test a different sample? Thanks!
Have a look at the DxO measurements comparing the Sony Zeiss 24-70 f/4 on the 36MP A7R with the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II on the 22MP Canon 5D mkIII. A clear sign that the lenses are key to resolution and a lot if pixels does not matter if you put the bottom of a beer bottle in front of it ;) I cannot understand Michaels comment on the good Zeiss glass! Maybe it is an unfair comparison as the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II is the best 24-70 ever made and much better and smaller than the older Nikon 24-70 f/2.8. For my D810 I bought the Sigma 24-105 f/4 OS which is a great lens but not up to the standard of the Canon 24-70 which I have on my 5D III. I had tried the Nikon 24-70 on my D800E and wasn't happy with it. Soft in the sides and corners.
-
Hans, in your last two graphs you are now comparing the Sony/Zeiss "full open" and the Canon "1 stop closed from full open".
I would not have expected anything else in that comparison.
If you make the same comparisons with both lenses at 5.6 you'll see that at 24 mm the Canon is slightly ahead by a small margin, at 35 and 50 mm the differences are insignificant and at 70 mm the Canon is about 8-12 % (eyeballing) it better across the whole field.
So your observation that with your lens stopping down doesn't help might point at the fact you have a bad copy. Not uncommon with Sony (unfortunately). I would try to get it fixed or exchanged if I were you.
-
Hans, in your last two graphs you are now comparing the Sony/Zeiss "full open" and the Canon "1 stop closed from full open".
I would not have expected anything else in that comparison.
If you make the same comparisons with both lenses at 5.6 you'll see that at 24 mm the Canon is slightly ahead by a small margin, at 35 and 50 mm the differences are insignificant and at 70 mm the Canon is about 8-12 % (eyeballing) it better across the whole field.
So your observation that with your lens stopping down doesn't help might point at the fact you have a bad copy. Not uncommon with Sony (unfortunately). I would try to get it fixed or exchanged if I were you.
I chose the same apertures in the comparison. Your comment is a bit odd in referring to me having a bad copy.... These measurements are DxO!
-
I chose the same apertures in the comparison. Your comment is a bit odd in referring to me having a bad copy.... These measurements are DxO!
Hans, my mistake and I confused your data with what jenbenn reported.
What I meant is that at f 5.6 and 35 and 50 mm the two lenses perform exactly the same according to DXO. At 24 mm there is only a maximun 5 % difference at 40 % in the field and 1-2% at 100%, the center is identical. At 70 mm the lens is indeed ~10% worse than the Canon, no question about about that.
In one of jenbenn's earlier posts he complained that stopping down his copy of the FE 25-70 didn't improve the sharpness.
Hence my conclusion that his (and not your) copy is probably a lot worse than the copy DXO tested, and may be a bad copy.
I hope this clears up what I meant.
-
Hi,
I sort of have noted that Zeiss lenses generally are regarded superior. I have or had 10 of them, 8 Hasselblad lenses (40/4, 50/4, 80/2.8, 120/4 (2 samples) 150/4 (2 samples) and 180/4 and 2 Sony Alpha zooms (24-70/2.8 ZA) and 16-80/3.5-4.5 ZA. I enjoy shooting with all of those lenses but I don't know if they are better than other lenses I had. On the Sony Alpha ZA zooms sharpness is excellent over a large sweet spot, but outside that sweet spot they need to be stopped down to f/8 for acceptable sharpness. The 24-70/2.8 ZA suffers for bad corner/edge sharpness even at f/8.
Regarding the 24-70/4, I have only seen tests about it. It is a new generation lens that is not corrected for distortion, that is handled in software. It doesn't shine in most tests, but Tim Ashley, who used to post a lot about lenses, is very happy with it.
So, my guess is that Zeiss lenses are OK, but may not live up to their reputation. Some lenses are excellent, like the 100/2 Macro, the 135/2 APO and the new Otus 55/1.4. Of the Hasselblad lenses I have the 180/4 is best. But, I have made excellent images with each of them.
Best regards
Erik
Michael,
in the video you say something along the lines "man the Zeiss lenses for the sony are so good". Now I have the FE 24-70 f/4 and I have to disagree here. At 24mm my copy is just plain bad. 2/3 out to the borders the images gets terribly soft and in the corners of the frame there is really nothing left you could call an image. The softness is symetric on all sides /corners, so I believe the lens is properly centered. Whats even more frustrating is that stopping down does not make a difference at all. The lens is just as bad at f/8 as it is at f/4. When zooming in, the border and corner softness somewhat eases, but stays unsatisfactory for most of the focal range. At first I thought I was doing something wrong here or had a defective copy, but when photozone tested the lens and came to the same conclusions, I am now lead to beleive the lens is just designed badly. Now you make this statement how good the zeiss lenses are with the fe 24-70 mounted to your 7r. Have you made a different experience? is your copy better than those tested out there?
Addiding to that: I beleive the mirrorless reviolution will not succeed without good quality fullframe lenses. I bought my A7 with a hope to replace my 5DIII 24/105 combo. I do lots of big size gallery prints and the 24-105 is very adaquete for this. For the Sony there is however no standard af zoom which can reach the (not perfect) quality of Canons 24-105. This is VERY frustrating.
Can you maybe elaborate a bit more on your experience with the fe 24-70, so that I can judge wheter it makes sense to test a different sample? Thanks!
-
Hi,
I sort of have noted that Zeiss lenses generally are regarded superior. I have or had 10 of them, 8 Hasselblad lenses (40/4, 50/4, 80/2.8, 120/4 (2 samples) 150/4 (2 samples) and 180/4 and 2 Sony Alpha zooms (24-70/2.8 ZA) and 16-80/3.5-4.5 ZA. I enjoy shooting with all of those lenses but I don't know if they are better than other lenses I had. On the Sony Alpha ZA zooms sharpness is excellent over a large sweet spot, but outside that sweet spot they need to be stopped down to f/8 for acceptable sharpness. The 24-70/2.8 ZA suffers for bad corner/edge sharpness even at f/8.
Regarding the 24-70/4, I have only seen tests about it. It is a new generation lens that is not corrected for distortion, that is handled in software. It doesn't shine in most tests, but Tim Ashley, who used to post a lot about lenses, is very happy with it.
So, my guess is that Zeiss lenses are OK, but may not live up to their reputation. Some lenses are excellent, like the 100/2 Macro, the 135/2 APO and the new Otus 55/1.4. Of the Hasselblad lenses I have the 180/4 is best. But, I have made excellent images with each of them.
Best regards
Erik
Your really dealing with many different lenses produced by different sources that have the Zeiss tag put on them, you can pickup compacts with Zeiss lenses these days, to compare them purely on that brand is I'd say a waste of time.
-
Hans, my mistake and I confused your data with what jenbenn reported.
What I meant is that at f 5.6 and 35 and 50 mm the two lenses perform exactly the same according to DXO. At 24 mm there is only a maximun 5 % difference at 40 % in the field and 1-2% at 100%, the center is identical. At 70 mm the lens is indeed ~10% worse than the Canon, no question about about that.
In one of jenbenn's earlier posts he complained that stopping down his copy of the FE 25-70 didn't improve the sharpness.
Hence my conclusion that his (and not your) copy is probably a lot worse than the copy DXO tested, and may be a bad copy.
I hope this clears up what I meant.
Yes, thanks :) But keep in mind that when the curves are aligned exactly that one is from a 36MP sensor with no OLPF and the other a 22MP with an OLPF. So the Canon lens is a lot better.
-
...Is there a trend? I can't see it...
I can... DSLRs are trending clearly down, mirrorless mildly up.
-
Yes, thanks :) But keep in mind that when the curves are aligned exactly that one is from a 36MP sensor with no OLPF and the other a 22MP with an OLPF. So the Canon lens is a lot better.
I don't think that is necesarily true Hans.
DXO mark shows a graph of the percentage of the maximum sensor resolution tested (the so-called percentage of perceptual MPix)
This is what they write about it on their site:
Perceptual MPix: a much simpler tool to score and compare lenses
P-Mpix is the unit of a sharpness measurement. The number of P-Mpix of a camera/lens combination is equal to the pixel count of a sensor that would give the same sharpness if tested with a perfect theoretical optics, as the camera/lens combination under test.
For example, if a camera with a sensor of 24Mpix when used with a given lens has a P-Mpix of 18MPix, it means that somewhere in the optical system 6Mpix are lost, in the sense that as an observer you will not perceive the additional sharpness that these 6Mpix should have added to the photos if everything was perfect.
In other words it indicates the ability of the lens and other optical components of a camera to utilize, from a visual perspective, the number of pixels of the camera sensor. P-MPix expresses the result using a figure that can easily be compared to the camera sensor’s MPix figure to show the quality of the lens.
Since the A7R is a 36 MP camera and the 5DIII a 22 MP camera this means that a 60% score on the A7R/lens combo 0.6 x 36 = 21,6 million "effective" pixels
A 70 % score on the 5DIII means the lens/sensor combination is using 0.7 x 22 = 15.4 million "effective" pixels
So 60% of the A7R score still has a higher resolution in the final resulting raw file then a 70% score of the 5DIII
This doesn't mean the Canon 24-70/2.8 is a less sharp lens then the Sony/CZ 24-70/4, it's only what DXO measures and reports for the lens/sensor combination of both cases.
To draw any conclusions on the lenses alone you would need to mount the Canon lens on the Sony body (with an adapter) and do a side-by-side comparison on the same sensor.
here's a link to the full story on the DXOMark website (http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Looking-for-new-photo-gear-DxOMark-s-Perceptual-Megapixel-can-help-you)
-
I haven't used a 24–70mm lens from any maker that I'd rate higher than "adequate" at 24 & 70mm. Note this doesn't include the current Canon f/2.8, which I understand is a step up from the previous version. The Sony/Zeiss f/4, at least my copy of it, is no exception to this. For a zoom it's fine. For a 14x21" print, as large as I've made from a photo taken with it, it's fine. The lens is relatively compact and light. I like it.
The best lens in the same coverage range I've ever owned & used is the m43 Olympus 12–40/2.8. It's at least as good as the Olympus & Panasonic "primes" within the same focal length range at same apertures.
-Dave-
-
What's that old phrase – a picture is worth a thousand words.
Here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/MR62/waterworks.jpg) is a shot with the ZA 24-70mm at f/8.
I find this lens to be as good as any zoom I have every owned.
(Caution...this is a 7MB file)
Michael
-
For my understanding, will you also be able to use the about to be launched Zeiss Loxia lenses on the A7-series of cameras?
Without cropping and/or vignetting?
Thanks, Joris.
-
I find this lens to be as good as any zoom I have every owned.
Pretty impressive image quality..
The last Canon 24-70 2.8L I had was good enough in terms of image quality for function work and other off the cuff stuff, but I wouldn't have used it over one of the primes for anything set-up.
With that in mind, instead of getting the Nikon 24-70 when I switched to the D800e's, I got a D7100, flash and Sigma 17-50 2.8 for shooting functions.
It's cheaper, can play the role of backup camera or remote camera and is more than good enough image quality for that sort of work.
It's also light..
-
What's that old phrase – a picture is worth a thousand words.
Here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/MR62/waterworks.jpg) is a shot with the ZA 24-70mm at f/8.
I find this lens to be as good as any zoom I have every owned.
(Caution...this is a 7MB file)
Michael
just curious. wondering what paper you printed this on. saw it, or a similar image, during your video. thanks. M.
and I'm with you on small, light, great image quality for bodies and lenses. personal preference now with age. also. I like being able to shoot around town and not attract gobs of attention with the big black boxes. lately shooting a ricoh gr. fantastic little camera. now waiting for something like it with a 50mm lens. I'd be happy. but like you pointed out in the video. full frame. 24-36mp. depending on need. and ok. If i can get it, something i could change lenses on would be practical.
-
I embraced the mirrorless cameras when they first appeared on the market since their compactness and light weight were ideal for the type of photography I do (travel, backpacking/hiking). However, I was initially disappointed by the limited dynamic range and the difficulty I had in focusing manually "by wire".
Last year all these problems were solved for me when I got my Sony RX1 and I've never looked back since. I have never had a camera that was as easy to customize or use as this camera is. Initially I was not sure if I would like being limited to a single lens, but in practice I am now focused more on being creative with what I have, and I spend less time obsessing about the gear.
Focus by wire is the most terrible design to hit the camera market in ages. It shows the lack experience the designing engineers have. No decent street or doc shooter would have ever designed it.
-
Which would you pick for landscape photography today? And why?
-
Going back to Michaels comment in the video about the weight of his backpack I'd question whether a FF mirrorless would really help that much. If your backpack weighs 35lbs then carrying say 2 a7r's rather than two D810's is what a couple of pounds less? if you consider that Nikon could put the D810 sensor in a D610 sized body that goes down to closer to a pound or half a pound if your just carrying one body. Its the lenses, tripod and other gear that really racks up the weight in my experience.
One issue I'v found as well is that the extra weight of a larger camera can actually limit the need for tripod use, moving from my 550D to a D800 for example I didn't find I was using a tripod anymore dispte the extra resolution and having to stop down a bit more simply because I could hand hold the heavier body with the better grip more successfully. When it comes to convenience for me not needing a tripod is WAY above saving 300-500g on body size.
A very small camera does appeal somewhat for street shooting but honestly I'm not sure I need FF for that either in terms of image quality of extreme DOF control. 35mm might have been standard for it in the past but it seems to be pretty commonly accepted that ASPC has now equalled or surpassed it in terms of quality.
If you ask me the area Canon and Nikon should be looking at is offering higher end size focused ASPC DSLR's/lenses. At present if you want to buy a small ASPC DSLR from them your looking at a plastic body setup for beginners with little in the way of small high quality lenses. I think its notable that in the west specially a lot of the growth of mirrorless cameras has come at the higher end of the market and I think Canon and Nikon leaving that space to fill is part of the reason for it, its also I'd argue whats keeping Pentax above water.
-
Of all the cameras mentioned. only the Sony A7 and the DSLRs deal well with dynamic range which is, to me, the single greatest drawback to the smaller sensors...
Olympus has one stop better dynamic range than 5DmIII, for instance:
-
Olympus has one stop better dynamic range than 5DmIII, for instance:
however FF sensor has its natural advantage in S/N beyond deep shadows, and if you/your shot are not challenged by the need to pull the details from deep shadows 5DmkIII is a better option.
-
Olympus has one stop better dynamic range than 5DmIII, for instance:
It's sometimes better to dig into the details where you see that the DR of the Canon is a problem at low ISO's but from about ISO 400 it changes sides. The noise characteristics is way better on FF as you can see.
-
... the DR of the Canon is a problem at low ISO's...
Just where it matters the most ;)
-
I get asked all the time "what camera should I buy" from friends who've decided their camera phones aren't enough any more. I shot a couple of pictures awhile back that I now use all the time. I shot a picture of 3 different "3 lens kits" next to each other. Ultra-wide (14-24 or close), mid-range zoom (24-70 or so) and a 70-200, or whatever's close. (In my case, I own Panasonic m4/3 bodies and lenses; a Fuji XPro-1 kit; a Nikon D800E kit.) I put a little sign next to each setup with the weight of one body, three lenses. I shot another picture with that kit in a bag just big enough to hold each kit. Some close friends have slung those three example bags on their shoulders when over for dinner.
And then a few questions: Do you shoot action sports or hyperactive young children; do you want to shoot in really awful dim light a lot; do you expect to print bigger than 16x20 very often.
It's been interesting to me that in all but one case, the decision was to go mirrorless m4/3.
But for me there's a bit more revolution required. I DO shoot action (rodeo, herding dog trials); I do shoot in dim awful light a lot (a trip to Cuba recently saw me at ISO 6400 more than 800 and under); I do print large and sell those prints. And I spend a fair amount of money a few times a year to go to places that I won't get to very often, to get to shoot things that most people won't get to shoot.
9 of 10 times, I end up with the Nikon kit (and screamingly painful knees and shoulders), because uncertainty about light levels or action shooting makes me unwilling to bring the smaller gear and risk losing a few images. Given that a spectacular yield from a two week shoot is a dozen images, the thought of losing a couple to focus hunting or ISO noise is just too much.
For all non-serious shooting, I never choose the Nikon gear. For all the serious stuff, I end up with the Nikon kit. But, with better low light capabilities and verifiably better focusing (as good as the new Fuji focusing is, it's not even close to the Nikon kit in iffy light), my Nikon gear would be out for auction. A few more pixels wouldn't hurt...
-
Just where it matters the most ;)
it, as usual, depends on the application/situation... in general I do not see that all of a sudden (or not sudden) there are way more beautiful photos from Nikon or Sony or m43 than from Canon despite their long (by now) lack of high DR @ base ISO sensors
-
it, as usual, depends on the application/situation...
Well, give me a genre where DR is crucial for high ISO. In the meantime, I will give you genres where DR is critical or important: landscape, architecture, portraits, fashion, to name a few. And all those are shot mostly on low ISO.
...in general I do not see that all of a sudden (or not sudden) there are way more beautiful photos from Nikon or Sony or m43 than from Canon despite their long (by now) lack of high DR @ base ISO sensors
That is just a silly argument. We, Canon users (or is it spelled "losers" these days?), are mostly stuck with it. Give it enough time, and most of us will migrate to 21st century camera makers, and then you will see more beautiful pictures from everyone else but Canon. By the way, I noticed recently some Photokina rumors, and it seems that Canon will "shock and awe" us with a new... Rebel!?!?!?!?
-
Well, give me a genre where DR is crucial for high ISO. In the meantime, I will give you genres where DR is critical or important: landscape, architecture, portraits, fashion, to name a few. And all those are shot mostly on low ISO.
That is just a silly argument. We, Canon users (or is it spelled "losers" these days?), are mostly stuck with it. Give it enough time, and most of us will migrate to 21st century camera makers, and then you will see more beautiful pictures from everyone else but Canon. By the way, I noticed recently some Photokina rumors, and it seems that Canon will "shock and awe" us with a new... Rebel!?!?!?!?
I shoot both Canon 5D III and Nikon D800E and landscapes and both work for me. Despite the measurements the Canon does work ;) For wild life high ISO performance and noise is important. Not what I shoot most these days, but I still have my Canon 500 f/4! Where the full frame cameras excels is the resolution and low noise.
-
Going back to Michaels comment in the video about the weight of his backpack I'd question whether a FF mirrorless would really help that much. If your backpack weighs 35lbs then carrying say 2 a7r's rather than two D810's is what a couple of pounds less? if you consider that Nikon could put the D810 sensor in a D610 sized body that goes down to closer to a pound or half a pound if your just carrying one body. Its the lenses, tripod and other gear that really racks up the weight in my experience.
And you see in the video the Nikon lens is significantly bigger and heavier than all the mirrorless lenses.
-
And you see in the video the Nikon lens is significantly bigger and heavier than all the mirrorless lenses.
As I posted much earlier on see the real difference for proper comparison. The difference is not as much and this particular Nikon lens is the biggest of all 24-70 f/2.8 lenses. The Nikon weighs 900 g and the Canon 600g. The Sony 24-70 430 g.
-
Mirrorless cameras aren't used by the press, sports, nature, or any kind of action photographers since the evfs still suck. I would think Michael and Kevin would talk a little about the downsides of the technology. I have no doubt that this will change in time. I think Canon and Nikon think that the technology isn't there yet. But I do agree with Michael/Kevin that Canon and Nikon have their heads in the sand. Photographers want smaller, lighter cameras and lenses. They don't seem to get this at all. Canon could at least make EF-S super teles for the 7D and the soon to come 7DX, 7DMII or whatever it will be called. How about a 500mm f/5.6 EF-S lens??? It would weigh a fraction of the current monstrosity that is the 500 f/4. Of course they probably couldn't get 10k for it, which is probably why they don't make it. You would think Sigma or Tamron would though.
-
Well, give me a genre where DR is crucial for high ISO. In the meantime, I will give you genres where DR is critical or important: landscape, architecture, portraits, fashion, to name a few. And all those are shot mostly on low ISO.
Isnt the difference going to be though that whilst the kind of shooting your doing at higher ISO is likely to call for less editing the level of DR your talking about at that stage will need less(or no) editing to show benefits?
-
And you see in the video the Nikon lens is significantly bigger and heavier than all the mirrorless lenses.
Your not looking at a like for like comparison in the video are you though, both 24-70mm lenses but the Nikon is a stop faster and seems like a better performer optically(a lot sharper at the long end, less distortion, less light dropoff). The latter really seems like an achilles heel of the wider FE lenses released thus far, the main thing I'v noticed about a lot of a7 example isn't corner softness but corner image noise.
-
Just where it matters the most ;)
But in essence this has nothing to do with mirror less ;) A bigger sensor has more real dynamic range potential for same output sized pictures, more resolution, finer gradations, better colors and less noise. A larger sensor can be put in a mirror less body and medium format as well. Especially for the latter there would be an even bigger advantage by avoiding the mirror and also an electronic first curtain would be of big value. I have looked into the EVF of the Sony A7R and I might be able to live with it, but it is a far cry from the VF on the D810 or the Canon 5D III.
I found it interesting that over two years of what is called the mirror less revolution that sales hasn't increased. I'm totally for mirror less, but I don't think this has matured yet and certainly not to a point of replacing DSLR's. There is still a break through waiting for this to happen. I would call it not a revolution, but an evolution so far. Doing a comparison like what was done in video kind of insulted my intelligence....
-
Mirrorless cameras aren't used by the press, sports, nature, or any kind of action photographers since the evfs still suck. I would think Michael and Kevin would talk a little about the downsides of the technology. I have no doubt that this will change in time. I think Canon and Nikon think that the technology isn't there yet. But I do agree with Michael/Kevin that Canon and Nikon have their heads in the sand. Photographers want smaller, lighter cameras and lenses. They don't seem to get this at all. Canon could at least make EF-S super teles for the 7D and the soon to come 7DX, 7DMII or whatever it will be called. How about a 500mm f/5.6 EF-S lens??? It would weigh a fraction of the current monstrosity that is the 500 f/4. Of course they probably couldn't get 10k for it, which is probably why they don't make it. You would think Sigma or Tamron would though.
Exactly! For me (and I'm sure countless other birders) a super-sharp 500mm f/5.6 EF-S would be an ideal lens if priced anywhere south of £1.5k and weighed less than a 100-400 zoom.
I think there is a lot of innovation left in the DSLR world - it is all about business decision/direction/timing but Canon and Nikon will have something in their back pockets if actual sales (rather than shipments) of mirrorless cameras start to feel too close for comfort.
-
From 4/3, apsc, full frame 35, super 35 cinema and medium format I own about every format sold, so I guess you could say I got skin in the game.
The mirrorless 4/3 are ok, the gh3 a good little video camera within it's restrictions of keeping it at low iso and manipulating color.
Also I'm probably in the handful of people that has shot all or part of a large commercial project with a mirrorless camera (at least in stills) and my bottom line is, mirrorless is not there yet, especially the small 4/3 cameras.
Sure, they're fine if your taking a snap and adjusting the color and then sticking it on line or making a smallish print, but if you work a file heavy in post, the files are fragile, with the best being the oly em-5 which has a much lattitude as my 1dx, but doesn't have the deep richness of the 1dx.
Also mirrorless burns through batteries if your working during the day.
After all the form factor is small, hence the batteries are small, except for the gh3 and gh4 which is a camera that is not that far off from the size of a canon 5d2.
Actually when it comes to real usability, the 70d is a much better camera than my olympus and panasonic mirrorless because the 70d has an apsc sensor, good high iso, an optical finder for stills, an articulating lcd for video, good autofocus with both, actually much better than any pure mirrorless camera I've owned and the 70d is a $900 camera.
I think mirrorless will get there, but they're going to have to up their game. I still believe 4.3 is too small a sensor, track focus has to improve greatly (except for the panasoics which nobody seems to love on the still side because I guess they're not retro enough looking in style.)
Since I assume people that shoot stills and don't care about video, then the camera has been out there all this time . . . a Leica m9. It has great detail, a thick file, sharp lenses, doesn't weight much and you can keep it for three years and probably sell it for what you paid, especially the lenses.
Sure the buy in is heftier, but mirrorless cameras seems to drop $200 in price every two weeks, new ones seem to come out every two months, so cost is relative.
But if cost really is an issue and usability compared to weight is also important a 70d with the 17 to 55 2.8 with good stabilization (apsc makes that about 25mm to 85mm in FF 35mm terms) with a constant 2.8 shoots a very robust still file and really very good video, if video is your bag.
So with the 70d and the 17 to 55 your about $1,700 at most in the game with a lightweight rig that will do most anything and is in effect a mirrorless and optical camera rolled into one.
IMO
BC
-
Shipments isn't sales...so take note on that
I don't honestly mind different products that might suit some users better, choice is good
I'd hardly call it a revolution though
And there are some problems..
Sony FE, no doubt fun for adapter users but goodbye IBIS makes all my A mount glass non stabilised, deal breaker before we even get off the starting blocks
Fuji X, I always liked Fuji and I've tried the X-T1 it's a good camera (few quirks but I like it) lenses are "good" (not sure about the 18-135mm though) But problems..flash system what flash system? Hmm fairly important for some and a major oversight from Fuji
Micro 4/3, tried a few bodies quite liked them GX7 in particular got on well with that. Some excellent lenses. E-M1 well near FF price for a body that well I can match and exceed with cheaper APS-C bodies, very little incentive to look at micro 4/3 for most SLR users "unless" you want to travel light
Nikon 1, don't take this too seriously bar the odd blow out deal might make a good compact substitute but not really a system
I appreciate some folks do want to travel and do want smaller, but get your head around the fact that it's not a factor for many or all users
I'm not seeing a revolution at all, just cost cutting and trying to re-sell us the same thing we've bought years ago in a smaller box
Of course I'm not your average buyer either I cranked up a system based on mostly legacy Minolta (and Tamron) glass for absolute peanuts, something I could not achieve on any other mount all of which is stabilised too. So the incentive to move system is close to 0. I keep an eye on things, have a play the odd time but as for moving..no thanks
I also detest focus by wire too, as do many a very ill informed choice by some in the industry
-
I don't think that is necesarily true Hans.
DXO mark shows a graph of the percentage of the maximum sensor resolution tested (the so-called percentage of perceptual MPix)
This is what they write about it on their site:
Perceptual MPix: a much simpler tool to score and compare lenses
P-Mpix is the unit of a sharpness measurement. The number of P-Mpix of a camera/lens combination is equal to the pixel count of a sensor that would give the same sharpness if tested with a perfect theoretical optics, as the camera/lens combination under test.
For example, if a camera with a sensor of 24Mpix when used with a given lens has a P-Mpix of 18MPix, it means that somewhere in the optical system 6Mpix are lost, in the sense that as an observer you will not perceive the additional sharpness that these 6Mpix should have added to the photos if everything was perfect.
In other words it indicates the ability of the lens and other optical components of a camera to utilize, from a visual perspective, the number of pixels of the camera sensor. P-MPix expresses the result using a figure that can easily be compared to the camera sensor’s MPix figure to show the quality of the lens.
Since the A7R is a 36 MP camera and the 5DIII a 22 MP camera this means that a 60% score on the A7R/lens combo 0.6 x 36 = 21,6 million "effective" pixels
A 70 % score on the 5DIII means the lens/sensor combination is using 0.7 x 22 = 15.4 million "effective" pixels
So 60% of the A7R score still has a higher resolution in the final resulting raw file then a 70% score of the 5DIII
This doesn't mean the Canon 24-70/2.8 is a less sharp lens then the Sony/CZ 24-70/4, it's only what DXO measures and reports for the lens/sensor combination of both cases.
To draw any conclusions on the lenses alone you would need to mount the Canon lens on the Sony body (with an adapter) and do a side-by-side comparison on the same sensor.
here's a link to the full story on the DXOMark website (http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Looking-for-new-photo-gear-DxOMark-s-Perceptual-Megapixel-can-help-you)
I find it really hard to find detailed descriptions of what DxO curves mean in detail. But as far as I can interprete the curves of acutance this is not a percentage of MP (and not M-Pix)
See here the same lens on two difference cameras, D800E and 5D mkIII. The Sigma 35 f/1.4 lens. This shows to me clearly that this lens is able to resolve more on the D800E than on the 5D mkIII. Therefore, if two different lenses on the D800E and the 5D mkIII has curves overlaying each other then the lens on the Canon is superior to the lens on the Nikon.
-
Hans, you might be right and browsing the DXO site more I came to the conclusion that the % acutance in the graphs are most likely not a % of MPix.
However DXO doesn't provide any information what the measurement really is, and even in their forum are very vague about providing more details see here (http://forum.dxomark.com/index.php/topic,1757.0.html). They promised an article on it for early 2014, but in June 2014 (and up to now) it remains unpublished. I hope they publish it soon, because I think a lot of people are interested in it (I am at least one and I guess you too ;))
Their description says it's some kind of perceptual measure of visual details in standard test chart, but not sure yet how it varies from sensor to sensor and if there is an impact of sensor megapixels or not.
-
It's sometimes better to dig into the details where you see that the DR of the Canon is a problem at low ISO's but from about ISO 400 it changes sides. The noise characteristics is way better on FF as you can see.
Canon's DR at low ISO is not generally a problem, in fact it's very good (it's the best Canon FF sensor ever). M4/3 is simply a bit better having 1/4 of sensor surface. That could be seen as a technological humilliation but that's another story.
The noise characteristics you mention must be first understood: SNR at 18% RAW exposure is always good on any sensor. 5D's is simply a bit better than the M4/3 but that difference is irrelevant since both are more than good enough (SNR>36dB for the M4/3 is excellent, invisible noise!). Noise is much better measured by the DR plot, which represents noise when lifting the shadows (where noise can really be a problem, and not at 18% of sensor saturation):
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/em1_5d_810_dr.png)
And here the M4/3 beats the 5D at low ISO. That makes the M4/3 a more balanced sensor at low ISO (noise is not so good in well exposed areas but better in the shadows). As a photo enthusiast and hobbist, not a professional, my choice is clear, since I own this beauty:
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/pen1.jpg)
I don't even think of carrying the bulky 5D+glass with me, just common sense. I only miss sometimes the ability to get shallower DOF, which is mostly solved using luminous primes that work fine right from max. aperture on M4/3.
Regards
-
Canon's DR at low ISO is not generally a problem, in fact it's very good (it's the best Canon FF sensor ever). M4/3 is simply a bit better having 1/4 of sensor surface. That could be seen as a technological humilliation but that's another story.
The noise characteristics you mention must be first understood: SNR at 18% RAW exposure is always good on any sensor. 5D's is simply a bit better than the M4/3 but that difference is irrelevant since both are more than good enough (SNR>36dB for the M4/3 is excellent, invisible noise!). Noise is much better measured by the DR plot, which represents noise when lifting the shadows (where noise can really be a problem, and not at 18% of sensor saturation):
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/em1_5d_810_dr.png)
And here the M4/3 beats the 5D at low ISO. That makes the M4/3 a more balanced sensor at low ISO (noise is not so good in well exposed areas but better in the shadows). As a photo enthusiast and hobbist my choice is clear: since I own this beauty:
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/pen1.jpg)
I don't even think of carrying the bulky 5D+glass with me.
Regards
How can the m4/3 be better in the shadows when the SNR is not on the level of the 5D III? I'm not referring to deep shadows where the 5D III starts with the banding. The noise level must be amplified equally when pushing shadows in post processing and therefore the sensor with the lowest SNR should win. Where is the flaw in that argument?
When shooting landscapes at ISO 100 and there are very bright highlights I bracket the shots and choose the most exposed shot in Lightroom where only non essential highlights are clipped. That means that I need to push shadows and this is done via the shadows slider as well as grad filters. What I find with the 5D III is that there is a level of the shadows where it starts banding, but before that level the shadows are fine with low noise. Clearly the Nikon D800E which I also shoot has a higher tolerance in the shadows due to the larger DR, but as long as the shadows are not breaking the 5D III I find little difference in the shadows.
Since the m4/3 is a smaller sensor if the pictures are resampled to the same size, the m4/s should show more noise in the shadows after this level of post processing that I just described. That's my thinking and if the logic is wrong, then where does it fall apart? Besides that I wish the Canon sensors will be better in the future.
-
Hans, you might be right and browsing the DXO site more I came to the conclusion that the % acutance in the graphs are most likely not a % of MPix.
However DXO doesn't provide any information what the measurement really is, and even in their forum are very vague about providing more details see here (http://forum.dxomark.com/index.php/topic,1757.0.html). They promised an article on it for early 2014, but in June 2014 (and up to now) it remains unpublished. I hope they publish it soon, because I think a lot of people are interested in it (I am at least one and I guess you too ;))
Their description says it's some kind of perceptual measure of visual details in standard test chart, but not sure yet how it varies from sensor to sensor and if there is an impact of sensor megapixels or not.
So you agree on my conclusions on the Canon lens in my previous post?
And thanks for the link to the forum as I have been searching also for clear descriptions and not vague ones. I though that my lack of clear understanding perhaps was since I'm not on the expert level of the DxO folks who do these measurements and calculations. So therefore I took the reverse engineering route to find consistency in the graphs. I find the information very valuable when evaluating a new lens purchase although there will be sample variations that the graphs don't show.
-
Hi,
I have the SAL 24-70/2.8 ZA, what I can say is that it is very sharp in the center but needs to be stopped down to f/8 - f/11 for accreptable corners.
I have seen some real MTF tests, made at Hasselblad for both the Canon 24-70/2.8 and the ZA. In that case the Canon was better. I am actually considering to replace the 24-70/2.8 with a Sigma 24-105/4, but that lens seems to have some issues, too. But, that must also be said, I am quite happy with the 24-70/2.8 ZA, many great images coming from that lens.
Best regards
Erik
So you agree on my conclusions on the Canon lens in my previous post?
And thanks for the link to the forum as I have been searching also for clear descriptions and not vague ones. I though that my lack of clear understanding perhaps was since I'm not on the expert level of the DxO folks who do these measurements and calculations. So therefore I took the reverse engineering route to find consistency in the graphs. I find the information very valuable when evaluating a new lens purchase although there will be sample variations that the graphs don't show.
-
How can the m4/3 be better in the shadows when the SNR is not on the level of the 5D III? I'm not referring to deep shadows where the 5D III starts with the banding. The noise level must be amplified equally when pushing shadows in post processing and therefore the sensor with the lowest SNR should win. Where is the flaw in that argument?
When shooting landscapes at ISO 100 and there are very bright highlights I bracket the shots and choose the most exposed shot in Lightroom where only non essential highlights are clipped. That means that I need to push shadows and this is done via the shadows slider as well as grad filters. What I find with the 5D III is that there is a level of the shadows where it starts banding, but before that level the shadows are fine with low noise. Clearly the Nikon D800E which I also shoot has a higher tolerance in the shadows due to the larger DR, but as long as the shadows are not breaking the 5D III I find little difference in the shadows.
Since the m4/3 is a smaller sensor if the pictures are resampled to the same size, the m4/s should show more noise in the shadows after this level of post processing that I just described. That's my thinking and if the logic is wrong, then where does it fall apart? Besides that I wish the Canon sensors will be better in the future.
SNR varies differently with RAW exposure between cameras, they only share the following behaviour: the higher the RAW levels the higher the SNR.
Near saturation (what DxO SNR18% benchmark measures), the 5D3 has better SNR than M4/3 sensors. You must understand 18% is roughly 2,5 stops from saturation so there is little interest in knowing how noisy a sensor is there (they're all good enough).
On the opposite, in the shadows (what DxO DR benchmark measures), the M4/3 has better SNR than the 5D3. So M4/3 has less shadows noise than the 5D3, the real challenge of sensors regarding noise.
Regards
-
SNR varies differently with RAW exposure between cameras, they only share the following behaviour: the higher the RAW levels the higher the SNR.
Near saturation (what DxO SNR18% benchmark measures), the 5D3 has better SNR than M4/3 sensors. You must understand 18% is roughly 2,5 stops from saturation so there is little interest in knowing how noisy a sensor is there (they're all good enough).
On the opposite, in the shadows (what DxO DR benchmark measures), the M4/3 has better SNR than the 5D3. So M4/3 has less shadows noise than the 5D3, the real challenge of sensors regarding noise.
Regards
Ok, so the SNR measurements by DxO is pretty much useless from what you say. So what we really should be looking at SNR as a function of exposure. But the DR measurements is not that. When I lift exposure in post processing when shooting at ISO 100 i digitally amplify the signal (including base noise aka. read noise from the AD converter) and not analogue as in the camera from which the DR measurements are derived. For an ISO less sensor I understand that there is little to no difference in the two but for the Canon sensor which is not ISO less in nature the difference is quite significant. So are there any source from where the SNR curve as a function of exposure could be derived to we properly could compare the Canon and the Oly camera? Am I right here in these considerations?
-
Hi,
I have the SAL 24-70/2.8 ZA, what I can say is that it is very sharp in the center but needs to be stopped down to f/8 - f/11 for accreptable corners.
I have seen some real MTF tests, made at Hasselblad for both the Canon 24-70/2.8 and the ZA. In that case the Canon was better. I am actually considering to replace the 24-70/2.8 with a Sigma 24-105/4, but that lens seems to have some issues, too. But, that must also be said, I am quite happy with the 24-70/2.8 ZA, many great images coming from that lens.
Best regards
Erik
Regarding the Sigma 24-105 f/4 OS you know I have this lens for the Nikon D800E and have not tested it for landscapes yet for the D810 (saying this because Lloyd Chambers found some odd softness in some cases with the D800E compared to the Canon 5D III in his tests). I found it mostly very good, but with some smaller areas with some softness. So not ideal but a very nice lens still and a very good range for a walk around lens. For those who are willing to carry it and the camera :) Combined it is a bit heavy.
-
The big issue with "normal" signal noise at base ISO for me would be contrast processing(especially for monochrome conversions), I found my old 550D lacking in that respect and even shooting FF can show issues if you push hard enough.
-
Ok, so the SNR measurements by DxO is pretty much useless from what you say. So what we really should be looking at SNR as a function of exposure. But the DR measurements is not that. When I lift exposure in post processing when shooting at ISO 100 i digitally amplify the signal (including base noise aka. read noise from the AD converter) and not analogue as in the camera from which the DR measurements are derived. For an ISO less sensor I understand that there is little to no difference in the two but for the Canon sensor which is not ISO less in nature the difference is quite significant. So are there any source from where the SNR curve as a function of exposure could be derived to we properly could compare the Canon and the Oly camera? Am I right here in these considerations?
SNR is a function of exposure and ISO. In fact DxO used to provide the SNR curves, but unfortunately they don't do it anymore:
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/digitalp02/snr_d200.gif)
- If you look at that graph, the SNR 18% plot is the slice for RAW level (x-axis)=18%. This info. could be useful for very purist studio shooters to find out how hyper clean their images can be, but IMO is quite useless.
- The DR plot on the contrary represents the number of stops between saturation and those deep shadows where SNR falls below 0dB. This gives a good idea of the RAW exposure range acceptably free of noise to distinguish textures. However SNR=0dB is a completely ruined by noise image, so it's only valid as an engineering DR criteria and to stablish comparisions between cameras. As a practical rule, DxO DR figures can be converted to realistic DR figures just by substracting 2 stops to their provided DR (this is equivalent to a SNR=12dB criteria, a good choice IMO for the maximum acceptable noise).
Regarding the different behaviour of iso-less sensors vs Canon sensors, this can be well understood again by looking at the SNR plots:
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/snr/curvassnr_iso.gif)
K5's iso-less sensor doesn't improve SNR by pushing ISO while aperture/shutter remain constant, that is why the thick black line remains at constant SNR. On the contrary de 5D2 sensor benefits from pushing ISO increasing its SNR, that is why its thick black line gets higher SNR the higher the ISO. This makes pushing ISO on Canon sensors much more necessary/useful than in Sony sensors when aperture/shutter don't suffice to obtain high enough RAW levels.
Regarding Canon sensor's DR, they seem to have prioritized other areas in the last years (video?):
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/perfect/dxomark2.gif)
DR of Canon/Nikon APS sensor vs time
Regards
-
So you agree on my conclusions on the Canon lens in my previous post?
Let's say that for me the jury is still out, you might be right or not depending on the definition of the % acutance DxO will hopefully give us one day. So I'm really hoping for a good explanation of what that number means.
The best test would obviously be to test the Canon lens on the same a7R body (pretty easy to do with the right adapter), when DxO would provide that the discussion can be closed without knowing how the percentage is actually defined.
-
Let's say that for me the jury is still out, you might be right or not depending on the definition of the % acutance DxO will hopefully give us one day. So I'm really hoping for a good explanation of what that number means.
The best test would obviously be to test the Canon lens on the same a7R body (pretty easy to do with the right adapter), when DxO would provide that the discussion can be closed without knowing how the percentage is actually defined.
Here is another example of the same lens tested on different bodies and all with no or compensated OLPF (D800E): Nikon D610, D800E and D7100. There are not yet any measurements for the D810.
So to me it is clear that the curves are absolute such that the higher % means a higher resolution. But I would like you like some clearer definitions and ideally also how various things are calculated. What are the formulas? I do realize that I probably would not understand all the formulas anyway ;)
-
Not sure why we've wandered onto dynamic range, as I was using a 5dMkIII a bit I can comment though, very nice camera but DR wise yes it clearly lags rivals, and it's not as good as some crop sensor cameras in that dept, DR has only marginally increased with Canon over the years.
However the main problems that face mirrorless remain, price relative to other normal crop sensor and FF bodies, and the system.
People can point to the new wave of modern designs, but these come with a higher challenge for optics (with the lens sitting closer to the sensor) this was and remains a problem for designers with distortion and fall off much more of a problem than normal DSLR type designs.
ILC's are interesting, but they are not going to represent the future for many buyers simply because they don't offer a compelling reason to move to them. And looking at some of the prices makers are charging, the camera industry is frankly fooling itself. In the last decade there has been a huge reduction in the price of consumer electronics, from computing to televisions, audio equipment and other items. Yet the camera industry feels it can remain immune to this, and they are horribly wrong... this is one of the reasons for the decline in sales of cameras with makers desperately trying to get premium prices (on higher end compacts and cameras) when the market simply isn't going to take it. We've loads of cameras, and most people won't be updating very often, and until the industry works out that they're overpriced, they won't get the sales on other items to make the profits.
-
Not sure why we've wandered onto dynamic range, as I was using a 5dMkIII a bit I can comment though, very nice camera but DR wise yes it clearly lags rivals, and it's not as good as some crop sensor cameras in that dept, DR has only marginally increased with Canon over the years.
However the main problems that face mirrorless remain, price relative to other normal crop sensor and FF bodies, and the system.
People can point to the new wave of modern designs, but these come with a higher challenge for optics (with the lens sitting closer to the sensor) this was and remains a problem for designers with distortion and fall off much more of a problem than normal DSLR type designs.
ILC's are interesting, but they are not going to represent the future for many buyers simply because they don't offer a compelling reason to move to them. And looking at some of the prices makers are charging, the camera industry is frankly fooling itself. In the last decade there has been a huge reduction in the price of consumer electronics, from computing to televisions, audio equipment and other items. Yet the camera industry feels it can remain immune to this, and they are horribly wrong... this is one of the reasons for the decline in sales of cameras with makers desperately trying to get premium prices (on higher end compacts and cameras) when the market simply isn't going to take it. We've loads of cameras, and most people won't be updating very often, and until the industry works out that they're overpriced, they won't get the sales on other items to make the profits.
I'm not sure that the sectors of the camera industry we discuss is really all that similar to most of what we'd call "consumer electronics", even an entry level ASPC DSLR's is actually quite an exotic piece of kit that's only going to be desired by a relatively small part of society compared to a flat screen TV or a smartphone. Your basic compact camera is more on the level of typical consumer electronics and that had indeed come down greatly in price to the extent that I suspect that even without the competition from smartphones profit margins are very low.
Your point about optics does for me highlight a bit of a misrepresentation of SLR tech in the digital age as some kind of leftover that's been clung too purely because it was established. In reality I would say that SLR tech persisted because it was actually a very good match for digital sensors. As you say retrofocal lens designs generally suit digital sensors, mirrors don't need any power to run on already power hunger devices, batteries used to provide that power can fit into grips needed to handle the lens sizes needed to deliver ever increasing performance demands. Even when it comes to AF your dealing with fundamentally different setups with no guarantee that tracking performance being matched by mirrorless will meet existing DSLR standards quickly or easily.
I think the just announced D750 is quite significant as well. I'd seen talk in the past that things like widely spaced professional AF and 100% viewfinders could not be fitted into smaller FF DSLR bodies but this camera does both. It makes the D800 an unrealistic comparison for the long term situation since I see no reason a body the size of the D750 couldn't include a higher resolution sensor.
-
Hi,
SLRs have been around for 80+ years, mirrorless is quite new.
The way I see it, SLRs were invented to achieve "what you see is what you get" representation of the image. The cost was complexity, adding a swinging mirror that is of course causing a few vibration problems and also induces an alignment problem.
With the arrival of AF we added a secondary mirror and even more alignment problems.
With modern sensors, we can use the actual signal of the sensor to build a preview image. We get "what you see is what you get" without the complexity of two swinging mirrors.
Removing the mirror makes it possible to reduce the flange distance, thus making the camera smaller. The reduced flange distance is really an option, you can still use DSLR lenses on mirrorless.
But, mirrorless has a long way to go. They will be much better after a few years of development.
Best regards
Erik
Not sure why we've wandered onto dynamic range, as I was using a 5dMkIII a bit I can comment though, very nice camera but DR wise yes it clearly lags rivals, and it's not as good as some crop sensor cameras in that dept, DR has only marginally increased with Canon over the years.
However the main problems that face mirrorless remain, price relative to other normal crop sensor and FF bodies, and the system.
People can point to the new wave of modern designs, but these come with a higher challenge for optics (with the lens sitting closer to the sensor) this was and remains a problem for designers with distortion and fall off much more of a problem than normal DSLR type designs.
ILC's are interesting, but they are not going to represent the future for many buyers simply because they don't offer a compelling reason to move to them. And looking at some of the prices makers are charging, the camera industry is frankly fooling itself. In the last decade there has been a huge reduction in the price of consumer electronics, from computing to televisions, audio equipment and other items. Yet the camera industry feels it can remain immune to this, and they are horribly wrong... this is one of the reasons for the decline in sales of cameras with makers desperately trying to get premium prices (on higher end compacts and cameras) when the market simply isn't going to take it. We've loads of cameras, and most people won't be updating very often, and until the industry works out that they're overpriced, they won't get the sales on other items to make the profits.
-
But, mirrorless has a long way to go. They will be much better after a few years of development.
there is only __one__ item where dSLM still behind dSLR = tracking in CAF
-
I'd seen talk in the past that things like widely spaced professional AF and 100% viewfinders
dSLM do focus @ EV-4 in ___any point in frame__ - that is a what ___widely spaced professional___ AF is.
-
Hi,
I have no issue with that view, but it may be possible on sensor phase detection already takes us there.
I see some other issues mirrorless:
1) Lag, mirrorless needs to read out the viewfinder image from the sensor which introduces a lag. SLRs also have a lag, due to mirror flip up, but the image in the viewfinder is real time. I don't know how important this is. I am not sure mirrorless is good enough for sports.
2) Viewfinder image contrast, but this amy be tuneable.
3) Viewfinder resolution
I would expect significant advances in all those areas.
Best regards
Erik
there is only __one__ item where dSLM still behind dSLR = tracking in CAF
-
ILC's are interesting, but they are not going to represent the future for many buyers simply because they don't offer a compelling reason to move to them.
most buyers (folks outside LuLa) do buy just a camera and kit lenses... so if & when C&N decide to finally move in there will be a compelling reason - because all "rebels" will be dSLMs.
-
1) Lag, mirrorless needs to read out the viewfinder image from the sensor which introduces a lag.
and what is this lag exactly ? in ms.
2) Viewfinder image contrast, but this amy be tuneable.
that's an image displayed - you can do whatever you want w/ it... you can't do this with OVF
3) Viewfinder resolution
if you want you can just enlarge any area in EVF (zoom in w/o zooming your lens) - you can't do this with OVF, so it is OVF resulution which is a problem in fact (and when it's dark you can't boost the brighness of OVF)
-
Hi,
This is not really the case. The short flange distance makes it possible to design symmetrical lenses with essentially no distortion. On the other hand, symmetrical lenses have issues with short back focus distance causing problems with light fall off.
The real problem is designing small lenses that work well with large digital sensors.
Another significant problem with any digital camera is that there is an optical package in front of the sensor 2-4 mm thick, that causes astigmatism in lenses with large beam angle. That must be compensated in lens design.
The flange distance on it's own is not a problem, you can use DSLR lenses on a mirrorless system with an adapter that simply acts as an extension tube, but the size advantage will be lost.
Best regards
Erik
However the main problems that face mirrorless remain, price relative to other normal crop sensor and FF bodies, and the system.
People can point to the new wave of modern designs, but these come with a higher challenge for optics (with the lens sitting closer to the sensor) this was and remains a problem for designers with distortion and fall off much more of a problem than normal DSLR type designs.
-
However the main problems that face mirrorless remain, price relative to other normal crop sensor and FF bodies, and the system.
People can point to the new wave of modern designs, but these come with a higher challenge for optics (with the lens sitting closer to the sensor) this was and remains a problem for designers with distortion and fall off much more of a problem than normal DSLR type designs.
I don't agree. The A7 is the cheapest FF camera on the market. There are mirrorless cameras at the same price as entry level DSLR's. It is not fair to compare a E-M1 with a basic Canikon model.
Mirrorless cameras short flange distance makes both possible to design small lenses (with all optical challenges derived), so as big lenses ala DSLR. Small size on mirrorless is an option and thus it can be an advantage over DSLR's. Big size on DSLR is a must so it can be a disadvantage over mirrorless.
-
I don't agree. The A7 is the cheapest FF camera on the market. There are mirrorless cameras at the same price as entry level DSLR's. It is not fair to compare a E-M1 with a basic Canikon model.
This does have to be gauged against the cost of the system as a whole though, I think its pretty clear Sony is using a "cheap body, expensive lenses" ploy here, none of the FE lenses released thus far represent good value relative to DSLR alternatives.
Plus of course I would argue that you looking at a body more basic in design than any FF DSLR, even the likes of the D610 and 6D offer significantly more advanced handling.
Mirrorless cameras short flange distance makes both possible to design small lenses (with all optical challenges derived), so as big lenses ala DSLR. Small size on mirrorless is an option and thus it can be an advantage over DSLR's. Big size on DSLR is a must so it can be a disadvantage over mirrorless.
Even in the days of film of course it was a bit give and take here as certain SLR lenses were smaller but as has been mentioned the switch to digital has had a significant negative impact on size saving with wide lenses on systems with short flange distances. Digital sensors are not nearly as forgiving as film was when it comes to light hitting them at extreme angles.
-
This does have to be gauged against the cost of the system as a whole though, I think its pretty clear Sony is using a "cheap body, expensive lenses" ploy here, none of the FE lenses released thus far represent good value relative to DSLR alternatives.
Plus of course I would argue that you looking at a body more basic in design than any FF DSLR, even the likes of the D610 and 6D offer significantly more advanced handling.
Even in the days of film of course it was a bit give and take here as certain SLR lenses were smaller but as has been mentioned the switch to digital has had a significant negative impact on size saving with wide lenses on systems with short flange distances. Digital sensors are not nearly as forgiving as film was when it comes to light hitting them at extreme angles.
Glad someone gets it yes even on film a real challenge esp with wider angle lenses, and hence the reason offset micro lenses are even more important.
Looking at the recent offerings from Sony and Fuji I've yet to see any lenses turn up that are in any way indicative of the "let's go small" element so many are keen to put forward in fact many of the recent Sony E mount FF lenses are in fact not only not small but bigger than alternative DSLR equivalents. The only thing small is the body the small system only counts for micro 4/3 where they have a much smaller sensor.
As for price the Sony and Fuji lenses offer a compelling reason for DSLR users to simply ignore these offerings a paper tiger if there ever was one
-
Glad someone gets it yes even on film a real challenge esp with wider angle lenses, and hence the reason offset micro lenses are even more important.
Looking at the recent offerings from Sony and Fuji I've yet to see any lenses turn up that are in any way indicative of the "let's go small" element so many are keen to put forward in fact many of the recent Sony E mount FF lenses are in fact not only not small but bigger than alternative DSLR equivalents. The only thing small is the body the small system only counts for micro 4/3 where they have a much smaller sensor.
As for price the Sony and Fuji lenses offer a compelling reason for DSLR users to simply ignore these offerings a paper tiger if there ever was one
To me its notable that the Sony FE lenses released thus far aren't really any smaller than you would expect from a DSLR AND they seem to be more compromised in terms of performance. The 35mm 2.8 has light dropoff when stopped down that's simply unacceptable, the 24-70mm is poor at the long end of the range, the 55mm is an excellent performer but its actually larger than most similarly speced SLR lenses. The argument might well be there that for a tiny register distances like the Sony's(much smaller than Leica's) many lens designs might actually need to be larger than on SLR's, effectively swapping less body depth for more lens depth.
Again for me the area where I see a gap in Canon and Nikons product line ups is when it comes to higher end small ASPC systems. I think the attraction for a lot of people with something like the X-T1 is that its a smaller body that's well built with controls aimed at the serious user backed up by a lens lineup also aimed at that kind of user. If Nikon sat put out something the size of the D5300 with controls and build similar to the Df and say a DX 35mm 1.4 of good quality I think it would eat significantly into the Fuji's market.
That said I think a fundamental misjudgement a lot of people make with the mirrorless market is looking at the world wide sales/shipments and then relate it to the kind of mirrorless cameras that sell in the west. In the US/UK higher end bodies makeup a lot of the sales but your talking a much smaller mirrorless market relative to Japan and the far east that makes up the majority of mirrorless sales and most of those big numbers are made up of smaller lower end bodies, including of course Canon and Nikon's systems.
In that respect I don't think its so much mirrorless cameras "stealing" DSLR sales as offering an option to people who might otherwise have used a compact or a phone. I'm guessing they've done much better in Japan simply because a higher percentage of the population there value image quality and DOF control.
-
I think it would eat significantly into the Fuji's market.
Fuji has no marketshare to speak about - so nobody cares to eat into it... it like trying to eat into marketshare of Samsung or Ricoh.
-
As for price the Sony and Fuji lenses offer a compelling reason for DSLR users to simply ignore these offerings a paper tiger if there ever was one
do you seriously think that owners of Sony, m43, Fuji, other dSLMs were all P&S shooters or those were their first cameras :D
-
What you guys are missing is that those of us who are using the a7r are not limited to Sony's lens offerings. I have the Leica 16/19/21 WATE, Sony 35 FE, Sony 55, and Leica 90 f/2. I challenge you to come up with a DSLR that comes close to the size, image quality and resolution of that kit. The Leica lenses are not light, but they are small. And you have to consider the whole enchilada, so to speak. Bags, filters, etc.
I just got back from backpacking in Wyoming's Wind River Mountains. 70 miles in 6 days. The a7r w/ 35mm and 90mm sat in a chest pouch. I could use it without taking my pack off and it served as a reasonable back up to my Alpa. No way I would have brought a DSLR for that.
As far as the 35mm's light falloff when stopped down, sure it is more than some other good lenses (http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-35mm-F28-on-Sony-A7R-versus-Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-35mm-F18G-ED-on-Nikon-D800-versus-Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-2-35mm-ZF2-Nikon-on-Nikon-D800___1251_917_1294_792_336_792), but I wouldn't call it "unacceptable." Have you tried it? I still added a little vignetting to many of my shots. It is not as good as the 55mm, but after comparing it with my Zeiss f/2 (Canon mount), it is certainly comparable to that, and significantly smaller and lighter. F/2.8 vs f/2, but the Zeiss T rating on DXO is 2.4 anyway.
There are a lot of "I wishes" with this system, and probably the most annoying is Sony's quality control with lenses. But I think in 5 -10 years the DSLR will be looked at as a temporary solution to two technical problems: How to see an acceptable image of what is on the capture plane, and fast, accurate autofocus.
Dave
-
Hi,
I would essentially agree with everything you say.
Best regards
Erik
What you guys are missing is that those of us who are using the a7r are not limited to Sony's lens offerings. I have the Leica 16/19/21 WATE, Sony 35 FE, Sony 55, and Leica 90 f/2. I challenge you to come up with a DSLR that comes close to the size, image quality and resolution of that kit. The Leica lenses are not light, but they are small. And you have to consider the whole enchilada, so to speak. Bags, filters, etc.
I just got back from backpacking in Wyoming's Wind River Mountains. 70 miles in 6 days. The a7r w/ 35mm and 90mm sat in a chest pouch. I could use it without taking my pack off and it served as a reasonable back up to my Alpa. No way I would have brought a DSLR for that.
As far as the 35mm's light falloff when stopped down, sure it is more than some other good lenses (http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-35mm-F28-on-Sony-A7R-versus-Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-35mm-F18G-ED-on-Nikon-D800-versus-Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-2-35mm-ZF2-Nikon-on-Nikon-D800___1251_917_1294_792_336_792), but I wouldn't call it "unacceptable." Have you tried it? I still added a little vignetting to many of my shots. It is not as good as the 55mm, but after comparing it with my Zeiss f/2 (Canon mount), it is certainly comparable to that, and significantly smaller and lighter. F/2.8 vs f/2, but the Zeiss T rating on DXO is 2.4 anyway.
There are a lot of "I wishes" with this system, and probably the most annoying is Sony's quality control with lenses. But I think in 5 -10 years the DSLR will be looked at as a temporary solution to two technical problems: How to see an acceptable image of what is on the capture plane, and fast, accurate autofocus.
Dave
-
do you seriously think that owners of Sony, m43, Fuji, other dSLMs were all P&S shooters or those were their first cameras :D
Did I say that?
The thread title is suggesting there is a revolution and that this is the future (ILC's)
Maybe it escaped a few people but there are a lot of folks invested in DSLR's and systems, unless you can come up with a reason for people to convert to ILC's (and to date there are few) I can't see how this will pan out longer term
On the ground most people seem to go for a DSLR if they move up from a bridge type camera or point and shoot
As a DSLR user myself I simply added a premium compact for when I want to "travel light" I have no real need for another system camera
-
What you guys are missing is that those of us who are using the a7r are not limited to Sony's lens offerings. I have the Leica 16/19/21 WATE, Sony 35 FE, Sony 55, and Leica 90 f/2. I challenge you to come up with a DSLR that comes close to the size, image quality and resolution of that kit. The Leica lenses are not light, but they are small. And you have to consider the whole enchilada, so to speak. Bags, filters, etc.
I'd agree its true that manual very expensive Leica's seem to be able to get over the issue with UWA but then again is that really the basis for a large shift in the market?
As far as the 35mm's light falloff when stopped down, sure it is more than some other good lenses (http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-35mm-F28-on-Sony-A7R-versus-Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-35mm-F18G-ED-on-Nikon-D800-versus-Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-2-35mm-ZF2-Nikon-on-Nikon-D800___1251_917_1294_792_336_792), but I wouldn't call it "unacceptable." Have you tried it? I still added a little vignetting to many of my shots. It is not as good as the 55mm, but after comparing it with my Zeiss f/2 (Canon mount), it is certainly comparable to that, and significantly smaller and lighter. F/2.8 vs f/2, but the Zeiss T rating on DXO is 2.4 anyway.
The Zeiss and Nikon lenses in that comparison have significant light falloff wide open and I'd agree shooting wide open that's often a desired effected. Stopped down though as you generally would for landscape use the Sony still has significant light dropoff across much of the frame with the corners still well over a stop where as the other two have very little.
-
I own the Zeiss 35/2.8…can't say I've seen this "unacceptable" falloff when stopped down. Maybe I won the QC sweepstakes!
I like mirrorless cameras mainly because I love EVFs. When CaNikon dumps the flipping mirror and starts providing super accurate VF manual focusing I may take it seriously again as an option. Until then…pfftt.
-Dave-
-
I own the Zeiss 35/2.8…can't say I've seen this "unacceptable" falloff when stopped down. Maybe I won the QC sweepstakes!
I like mirrorless cameras mainly because I love EVFs. When CaNikon dumps the flipping mirror and starts providing super accurate VF manual focusing I may take it seriously again as an option. Until then…pfftt.
-Dave-
I've not used the lens so can't comment on it's optical properties, but let me say £600 for a 35mm f2.8 prime is rather dubious at best. f2.8 isn't exactly fast for a prime of that focal length, if it were f2 or faster you'd likely have some fairly bad fall off problems. But that's the speed people want for a prime like that..f2.8 we're well into "don't bother buy a zoom" territory.
Looking at the reviews...
http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/865-zeiss35f28ff?start=1
The auto-corrected light falloff at max. aperture is very moderate for a lens on a full format camera. At f/2.8, we are seeing a light falloff of 1.3EV (f-stops). Stopping down doesn't help a lot with a best low value of just under 1EV. This remains visible in certain scenes.
The situation changes when looking at the uncorrected data. At fully open aperture, the falloff is a hefty 2.6EV. Stopping down to f/8 gives you 1.6EV which is still not good. Please note that the auto-correction effect is clearly visible in the image corners - due to the signal amplification they are more noisy than the image center. It is interesting to note that the RAW files are also touched when activating the auto-correction in the camera.
The other problem is neither of the Zeiss primes launched are stabilised either, though at least the 55mm is fairly fast
Some said Sony avoided ultra fast primes esp wider angle ones as they'd have serious issues with vignetting, looking at the uncorrected fall off one can only imagine how bad a genuinely fast 35mm prime would be on the FE bodies, try 35mm f1.4 and I'd expect massive problems.
The fall off on the Sony seems similar to the Nikon 35mm f1.4 G in fact a bit worse but that lens is 2 stops faster (which is significant) and it's still a problem stopped down (unlike DSLR primes which won't have issues at smaller apertures)
Looking at the reliance on software correction it's fairly clear FF sensors on ILC's need much better designed micro lenses to reduce the problems
Shoving a FF sensor into a small body with a very short flange distance is the stuff lens designers have nightmares over
-
I own the Zeiss 35/2.8…can't say I've seen this "unacceptable" falloff when stopped down. Maybe I won the QC sweepstakes!
I like mirrorless cameras mainly because I love EVFs. When CaNikon dumps the flipping mirror and starts providing super accurate VF manual focusing I may take it seriously again as an option. Until then…pfftt.
-Dave-
See Dave, the problem with you and me is, we just don't know how bad we have it.
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/windriverpost/DChew_140830_01302-FrameShop.jpg)
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/windriverpost/DChew_140903_01578-FrameShop.jpg)
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/windriverpost/DChew_140904_01697-FrameShop.jpg)
-
... the switch to digital has had a significant negative impact on size saving with wide lenses on systems with short flange distances. Digital sensors are not nearly as forgiving as film was when it comes to light hitting them at extreme angles.
This myth has to be rebutted yet again: lenses with rear elements close to the focal plane (too close to use with an SLR) do not necessarily have the highly off-perpendicular incidence of light her the edges and corners of the frame that classic near-symmetric rangefinder wide-angle lenses have. Instead, they can be highly telecentric, as electronic sensors prefer. In fact lenses for fixed lens digital cameras tend to be like this: quite tele-centric, and with rear elements very close to the focal plane.
The bottom line is that a mirror-less system allows lens to have rear elements close to the focal plane and thus opens up more design options, while not taking any away. It does not force SLR optical designs to be abandoned when they still work well, it does not force the use of film rangefinder lens designs, etc.
It is hard to deny that there are many lenses for mirror-less digital systems that are distinctly smaller than any comparable lens for a DSLR, especially amongst lenses with wide-angle coverage.
-
This myth has to be rebutted yet again: lenses with rear elements close to the focal plane (too close to use with an SLR) do not necessarily have the highly off-perpendicular incidence of light her the edges and corners of the frame that classic near-symmetric rangefinder wide-angle lenses have. Instead, they can be highly telecentric, as electronic sensors prefer. In fact lenses for fixed lens digital cameras tend to be like this: quite tele-centric, and with rear elements very close to the focal plane.
The bottom line is that a mirror-less system allows lens to have rear elements close to the focal plane and thus opens up more design options, while not taking any away. It does not force SLR optical designs to be abandoned when they still work well, it does not force the use of film rangefinder lens designs, etc.
It is hard to deny that there are many lenses for mirror-less digital systems that are distinctly smaller than any comparable lens for a DSLR, especially amongst lenses with wide-angle coverage.
Care to demonstrate these smaller lenses?
All the real world stuff so far demonstrates fall off is a much higher problem on FF sensors with short flange distances, no myths just reality that some refuse to accept
It always was a problem, even with the best rangefinder lenses even on 35mm film (which tolerates acute angles of light hitting it far better than most sensors)
The fly in the soup well there are 2, not smaller lenses (compare the FF ILC offerings to normal DSLR ones and it's not holding up at all) and optical compromises abound.
It's time some folks stopped banding around mirror less as some kind of panacea or photographic heaven at least as far as full frame goes, situation isn't as bad for APS-C and micro 4/3 due to the smaller sensors.
-
Here's one:
Both are f/2. 100mm vs. 90, but that is pretty close. Both manual focus, both "pretty good" lenses. The Zeiss is better wide open, but once you get to f/4, the differences are subjective. The Zeiss focuses closer, but this image shows both lenses set to infinity, which is their shortest length.
And I certainly agree there is more light falloff on some lenses. But to say that means they are unusable, unacceptable and makes those lenses 'not count' in anyone's analysis is not something I agree with. We all have our personal constraints we abide by. You may have a certain limit to light falloff as one of yours. But that doesn't mean I have to accept that same constraint in my analysis and decision.
Dave
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/lvz/DChew_140205_6143.jpg)
-
Maybe it escaped a few people but there are a lot of folks invested in DSLR's and systems
may be it escaped you that "a lot" for whom "invested" is around $10K+ is a tiny market share population wise... those might stay, like people who shoot MF or LF.
, unless you can come up with a reason for people to convert to ILC's (and to date there are few)
for those it starts not with conversion - but buying as a 2nd, 3rd, you name it camera... that it is creeping in as a camera that you more often take w/ you... and so on.
On the ground most people seem to go for a DSLR if they move up from a bridge type camera or point and shoot
nope - most will go to "C or N" label, not for a "dSLR"... so once C & N decide to market dSLM (and they might just initially make it absolutely like dSLR body) those "most people" will simply buy what is marketed to them
-
With the new Sony 16-35 f/4 announced, I have updated the comparison sheet including the weight differences.
Note that Nikon does not have a 24-70 f/4 so I took the 24-120 f/4 instead which is heavier than a 24-70 f/4 should be.
-
Hi,
I don't really see the weight/size gains as a major factor with mirrorless unless compact lenses are used. A 70-400/4-5.6 lens will be as large on mirrorless as on a DSLR. That said, some lenses can be compact. Sony gives up some maximum aperture to keep size down, like 35/2.8 and 55/1.8 (instead of 55/1.4), it may be a reasonable choice.
For me, the major attraction of mirrorless is simplicity. Essentially getting rid of the moving mirror and AF assembly.
I don't think that mirrorless can compete with DSLRs on all accounts, viewfinder lag may be problematic shooting sports, for instance. On the other hand I am pretty sure that mirrorless will dominate DSLRs in the long term, because of the said simplicity.
Best regards
Erik
With the new Sony 16-35 f/4 announced, I have updated the comparison sheet including the weight differences.
Note that Nikon does not have a 24-70 f/4 so I took the 24-120 f/4 instead which is heavier than a 24-70 f/4 should be.
-
I picked a good day there are lots of big FE mount lenses announced!
http://www.photographyblog.com/news/sony_distagon_t_35mm_hands_on_photos/
http://www.photographyblog.com/news/sony_90mm_macro_hands_on_photos/
http://www.photographyblog.com/news/sony_24_240mm_hands_on_photos/
The 16-35mm doesn't look too massive but those ones do a great job of the "small body with big lenses" problem
MF rangefinder lenses were compact and small, but as far as AF lenses goes well it's cut and dry so far no advantage to smaller lenses at least with what Sony are up to.
-
Here's one:
Both are f/2. 100mm vs. 90, but that is pretty close. Both manual focus, both "pretty good" lenses. The Zeiss is better wide open, but once you get to f/4, the differences are subjective. The Zeiss focuses closer, but this image shows both lenses set to infinity, which is their shortest length.
And I certainly agree there is more light falloff on some lenses. But to say that means they are unusable, unacceptable and makes those lenses 'not count' in anyone's analysis is not something I agree with. We all have our personal constraints we abide by. You may have a certain limit to light falloff as one of yours. But that doesn't mean I have to accept that same constraint in my analysis and decision.
Dave
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/lvz/DChew_140205_6143.jpg)
I'd guessing the Zeiss's macro ability adds weight besides the lens becoming longer when focused more closely. Looking at a lot of older macro lenses that didn't internally focus there clearly larger than non macro lenses of similar specs. If theres a difference in sharpness wide open that's pretty significant as well, most people wouldn't buy a lens like these purely to shoot F/4. Plus of course the Leica costs double the price of the Zeiss, I'm guessing more exotic size saving design maybe part of that.
Look at the just announced Sony 90mm macro...
http://www.photographyblog.com/news/sony_90mm_macro_hands_on_photos/
Not exactly small.
-
What we've established here is "it depends." If someone wants to shoot with zooms, then there is little to be gained in lens size and maybe weight. But if someone makes it a priority to find very high quality prime glass, then there are ways to save weight and especially size when choosing the a7r. I agree with Barry it is no panacea. But these cameras offer options that DSLR's don't (and vice versa of course).
I was a Canon shooter since the early 90's. Although I switched to medium format in 2011, I still needed a more versatile system, and my 5d was getting old. Canon didn't have anything exciting to me, and I didn't want to switch all my lenses in order to get a D800. When the a7r came out I thought it was perfect because I could use all my Canon glass. But after I got to know the camera, I realized I was wasting a great potential for a smaller system. I had a Zeiss 21, 24, 35, 50 and canon 90 ts. I replaced that with the two Leicas (WATE and 90) and two Sony's (35 & 55).
Equal quality (using my constraints), smaller and lighter kit.
Dave
-
What we've established here is "it depends." If someone wants to shoot with zooms, then there is little to be gained in lens size and maybe weight. But if someone makes it a priority to find very high quality prime glass, then there are ways to save weight and especially size when choosing the a7r. I agree with Barry it is no panacea. But these cameras offer options that DSLR's don't (and vice versa of course).
I was a Canon shooter since the early 90's. Although I switched to medium format in 2011, I still needed a more versatile system, and my 5d was getting old. Canon didn't have anything exciting to me, and I didn't want to switch all my lenses in order to get a D800. When the a7r came out I thought it was perfect because I could use all my Canon glass. But after I got to know the camera, I realized I was wasting a great potential for a smaller system. I had a Zeiss 21, 24, 35, 50 and canon 90 ts. I replaced that with the two Leicas (WATE and 90) and two Sony's (35 & 55).
Equal quality (using my constraints), smaller and lighter kit.
Dave
The question then really becomes whether this is a "revolution" or a niche product akin to Leica's rangefinders post SLR growth in the 60's/70's.
What really stands out for me with these newly announced lenses is that Sony is likely going to need to release a larger body give a good grip to aid handling them. When you also consider that theres nothing to stop Canon and Nikon putting higher resolution sensors in a 6D/D750 sized body I think that has a big impact on size saving, it likely becomes less 1kg vs 500g and more something like 700-800g vs 650g.
Again for me I think a big part of the success of mirrorless thus far is that its been "filling the gaps" both in terms of few DSLR's focused on small size for advanced users AND in terms of advanced compacts lagging behind in sensor size. When compacts were stalled at 1/1.7' sensors for years on end mirrorless systems offered the only relatively small camera with good IQ. Recent 1 inch and larger sensor compacts though show that a fixed lens can have a significant size advantage over a systems camera. The LX100 especially to me makes that clear given just how heavily the lens outspecs(2+ stops) m43 power zooms.
-
I just think ultimately it comes down to Erik's point. Once the technology is there for fast autofocus and EVF w/ adjustable contrast and other features that make it as "viewable" as an OVF, there is no reason to have the mirror box, and you get the additional benefits to direct viewing TELECASTER brought up. And you can still use the lenses you have, if you want.
Dave
-
The EVF's I have seen don't compete at all with the viewfinders on my 1Ds III, 5D III and D800E/D810. I want a bright, clear and uncluttered view finder and I do not want to look at real time histograms, zebras etc. I want to compose my images!
Besides that, as documented, the size and weight savings on full frame mirror less cameras are small and for the Canon about 20% with zoom lenses from 16mm to 200mm. For simplicity: I really like simplicity, but I'm not ready to give up essential features for simplicity. So for me the mirrorless revolution is not that revolutionary. I think it's an evolution where both Canon and Nikon will come out with alternative mirrorless bodies at some point to supplement the DSLR's using the same mount. Yes, Canon has a small APS-C mirror less, but that is not really an alternative to the DSLR's. Look at the Canon 7D mkII (and the 70D) with the 80% coverage on the sensor with phase detection dual pixels. This is just the quiet way to develop the technology to enable a mirrorless body at some point too far into the future. But really, what is the big point? I see so far the mirror box as an advantage and not a disadvantage. I only had one issue with the shutter failing more than 10 years ago and this could happen on a mirror less body as well. I never had a failure in the mirror box itself. And I have had several hundred thousands of exposures over the years.
The only way really seen so far to really scale down is a reduced sensor size which is not my wish. I do have a pocketable Sony RX100 III (mirror less!) to complement. For quite a while I was thinking I should have a smaller camera setup to travel light until I realized looking at the math that there was little savings and I still had to carry the cameras in a bag, so the RX100 made so much more sense as a complement.
Just my 2 cents :)
-
The EVF's I have seen don't compete at all with the viewfinders on my 1Ds III, 5D III and D800E/D810. I want a bright, clear and uncluttered view finder and I do not want to look at real time histograms, zebras etc. I want to compose my images!
Besides that, as documented, the size and weight savings on full frame mirror less cameras are small and for the Canon about 20% with zoom lenses from 16mm to 200mm. For simplicity: I really like simplicity, but I'm not ready to give up essential features for simplicity. So for me the mirrorless revolution is not that revolutionary. I think it's an evolution where both Canon and Nikon will come out with alternative mirrorless bodies at some point to supplement the DSLR's using the same mount. Yes, Canon has a small APS-C mirror less, but that is not really an alternative to the DSLR's. Look at the Canon 7D mkII (and the 70D) with the 80% coverage on the sensor with phase detection dual pixels. This is just the quiet way to develop the technology to enable a mirrorless body at some point too far into the future. But really, what is the big point? I see so far the mirror box as an advantage and not a disadvantage. I only had one issue with the shutter failing more than 10 years ago and this could happen on a mirror less body as well. I never had a failure in the mirror box itself. And I have had several hundred thousands of exposures over the years.
The only way really seen so far so really scale down is a reduced sensor size which is not my wish. I do have a pocketable Sony RX100 III (mirror less!) to complement. For quite a while I was thinking I should have a smaller camera setup to travel light until I realized looking at the math that there was little savings and I still had to carry the cameras in a bag, so the RX100 made so much more sensor as a complement.
Just my 2 cents :)
As I said I see the growing high end compact market as taking a sizeble bite out of the interchangeable lens mirrorless market in the future. I think a lot of people who bought more basic mirrorless bodies in the past were likely actually after something like the RX100, G7X, LX100 but didnt have that option.
Personally though as you say I think people need to take a step back and look at the real situation. We constantly get the "revolution" hyperbole but when you look at what were actually talking about(removing a mirror and making cameras a bit slimmer) it hardly seems that radical for FF at least when you consider the size of the lenses involved. That's hardly akin to the shift to digital, perhaps not even the shift to AF that added new very significant functionality.
I think its notable that the DSLR form factor we've had for the last 30 years or so isn't only the result of having a mirror in the body. The big grip of the modern DSLR is I'd say the result of a combination of the increase in size of lenses in the 80's(with zooms, AF, etc being introduced) and the increased need for power(with with automation and AF, then with the switch to digital) from large batteries. The mirrorless market that we see today is not IMHO the same kind of market we would see should DSLR tech be dropped, todays mirrorless because it can't offer DSLR performance instead sells based on small size, if it were to take over from DSLR's it would likely increase in size and in that situation using DSLR mounts would actually matter little(especially as lenses could be recessed into them).
-
Design evolved over the years and I think the additional grips and size were an ergonomic choice.
Lenses did increase a bit in size due to AF, however I have many original Minolta lenses that are far more compact than modern designs (primes and zooms).
As modern lenses go for in lens motors, electronic aperture control and in lens IS all of these add size to a lens no other way to convey that.
You can't have it all and expect no size increase, however Canon are notorious for "big lenses" and bar a few of these newer pancakes they've consistently not sought compact lens designs in fact quite the reverse.
And note the Pentax limited range is also compact, but again with mechanical aperture and screw driven.
I'm not objecting to smaller lenses, but I don't see much point just having smaller bodies and lenses that are big. Even some of the Fuji X series lenses are larger than I would expect and that's a crop sensor body. It's quite disappointing really
-
The EVF's I have seen don't compete at all with the viewfinders on my 1Ds III, 5D III and D800E/D810. I want a bright, clear and uncluttered view finder and I do not want to look at real time histograms, zebras etc. I want to compose my images!
Turn them off then. Problem solved. ;D
I recently tried an XT1 and the thing that impressed me most about camera was the viewfinder and how big it was even compared to my FF DSLRs and it's enormous compared to crop sensors DSLRs. And for me a big viewfinder is much better for composing etc than a pokey one, so was very impressed by the XT1 in that respect. Mind you my 5Ds have a small viewfinder compared to my old OM film bodies which are tiny in comparison. Not only that, they were designed about 50 years back, progress eh!
-
The EVF's I have seen don't compete at all with the viewfinders on my 1Ds III, 5D III and D800E/D810. I want a bright, clear and uncluttered view finder and I do not want to look at real time histograms, zebras etc. I want to compose my images!
/quote]
and you can switch those things off in EVF... because it is just a matter of firmware.
-
and you can switch those things off in EVF... because it is just a matter of firmware.
Ok, I probably need to say, yes, of course :) But this seems to be much of the argument for the EVF's ! For me nothing beats a good OVF.
-
Ok, I probably need to say, yes, of course :) But this seems to be much of the argument for the EVF's ! For me nothing beats a good OVF.
I thought that until recently too. Although current EVFs are not as good as OVFs for some things [as of yet], after trying some out I now find myself missing quite a few of the features they do have when using an 'old fashioned' OVF. :-\
-
This discussion strikes me as a re-hash of AF vs. MF, film vs. digital, UV vs. not UV. Canon vs. Nikon, anyone? Or better yet, go take some pictures.
-
This discussion strikes me as a re-hash of AF vs. MF, film vs. digital, UV vs. not UV. Canon vs. Nikon, anyone? Or better yet, go take some pictures.
Very definitely the old way is better Vs fancy pants modern methods discussion.
-
Very definitely the old way is better Vs fancy pants modern methods discussion.
I have always been a fan of real progress :) And I do go out shooting. Now I'm off to run two workshops in the Dolomites with and without mirrors, autofocus, live view, tripods, good light :)
-
I have always been a fan of real progress :) And I do go out shooting. Now I'm off to run two workshops in the Dolomites with and without mirrors, autofocus, live view, tripods, good light :)
Ooh, Dolomites! Keep meaning to go there and do some bike riding and admire the scenery
-
There is I'd say also been a good deal of warping of history going on here. The reality is IMHO that the push towards mirrorless was mostly the product of Canon and Nikon coming out ontop in the move for the DSLR market. Everyone else either needed to look elsewhere for significant market share or fall going to the wall(or becoming a niche player).
Sony and Panasonic especially to me give the impression of companies who look a bit desperate knowing that there camera divisions could be facing the ax if they don't increase profits quickly. I wouldn't be supprized if the FE system is Sony's camera division last roll of the dice.
-
Hi,
I have been with Hans in the Dolomites and I have seen all possible cameras and I guess that we all came home with great pictures…
Best regards
Erik
I have always been a fan of real progress :) And I do go out shooting. Now I'm off to run two workshops in the Dolomites with and without mirrors, autofocus, live view, tripods, good light :)
-
The reality is IMHO that the push towards mirrorless was mostly the product of Canon and Nikon coming out ontop in the move for the DSLR market.
certainly, a lot of progress in various areas happens because somebody is trying to come up with disruptive ideas...
-
Hi,
I have been with Hans in the Dolomites and I have seen all possible cameras and I guess that we all came home with great pictures…
Best regards
Erik
Thanks very much Erik and I would say that still the guy behind the camera counts 10x+ the camera :)
-
There is I'd say also been a good deal of warping of history going on here. The reality is IMHO that the push towards mirrorless was mostly the product of Canon and Nikon coming out ontop in the move for the DSLR market. Everyone else either needed to look elsewhere for significant market share or fall going to the wall(or becoming a niche player).
Sony and Panasonic especially to me give the impression of companies who look a bit desperate knowing that there camera divisions could be facing the ax if they don't increase profits quickly. I wouldn't be supprized if the FE system is Sony's camera division last roll of the dice.
Unfortunately very much my view and interpretation of the market situation. But hopefully there is more to the story, we will see :)
-
Ooh, Dolomites! Keep meaning to go there and do some bike riding and admire the scenery
Absolutely you should and don't forget to bring your best camera and get off the bike :)
-
The reality is IMHO that the push towards mirrorless was mostly the product of Canon and Nikon coming out on top in the move for the DSLR market. Everyone else either needed to look elsewhere for significant market share or fall going to the wall (or becoming a niche player).
I think there's much truth in this. Innovation is often driven by the simple need to stay alive. But it's not the whole truth. The move towards EVFs would be happening regardless, though probably not at the same pace. The benefits are obvious to anyone who uses them without preconceptions of the "optical VF experience" being superior. (Sports & BIF photogs excepted…for now anyway.) The benefits are also obvious to the various camera makers in terms of reduced mechanical complexity & manufacturing costs. I imagine CaNikon will be using EVFs in lower-end SLR-like cameras before too long*. How fast they migrate upwards in the product line will depend on how well they're received by lower-end buyers…and how much of a ruckus is raised by the Reflex Forever! folks. :D
-Dave-
*Another possibility, though, is that the mirrorless market may in the short term discourage CaNikon from using EVFs in EF & F mount cameras, despite the benefits, in order to better differentiate themselves from that market.
-
I think there's much truth in this. Innovation is often driven by the simple need to stay alive. But it's not the whole truth. The move towards EVFs would be happening regardless, though probably not at the same pace. The benefits are obvious to anyone who uses them without preconceptions of the "optical VF experience" being superior. (Sports & BIF photogs excepted…for now anyway.) The benefits are also obvious to the various camera makers in terms of reduced mechanical complexity & manufacturing costs. I imagine CaNikon will be using EVFs in lower-end SLR-like cameras before too long*. How fast they migrate upwards in the product line will depend on how well they're received by lower-end buyers…and how much of a ruckus is raised by the Reflex Forever! folks. :D
-Dave-
*Another possibility, though, is that the mirrorless market may in the short term discourage CaNikon from using EVFs in EF & F mount cameras, despite the benefits, in order to better differentiate themselves from that market.
I'd agree but it does paint a very different picture of the market to that many seem to have and whilst history shows some companies succeed in this fashion many more fail and lets be honest mirrorless is currently failing in terms of profits, or rather the lack of them.
My guess is that if Canon or Nikon introduce an EVF in there DSLR mounts in the short term it'll either be replacing an OVF entirely on a very small body(probably APSC) or it'll be some kind of EVF/OVF hybrid on a higher end body designed to give the best of both, I could see Canon putting something like this into the 5D4 for example to help push its video functionality.
-
The EVF's I have seen don't compete at all with the viewfinders on my 1Ds III, 5D III and D800E/D810. I want a bright, clear and uncluttered view finder and I do not want to look at real time histograms, zebras etc. I want to compose my images!
Hans your argument is permanent from people who are used to OVF, but such generation will vanish soon. Today's young people started taking pictures with a digital compact camera or mobile, and they will complain much more at having to use the rudimentary DLSR exposure meter than at not having such a bright OVF they never used (BTW my EVF is far more bright than any OVF in low light conditions). In technological terms you are a dinosaur.
An OVF helps you compose, an EVF helps you compose AND expose images. Guess who wins.
-
Hans your argument is permanent from people who are used to OVF, but such generation will vanish soon. Today's young people started taking pictures with a digital compact camera or mobile, and they will complain much more at having to use the rudimentary DLSR exposure meter than at not having such a bright OVF they never used (BTW my EVF is far more bright than any OVF in low light conditions). In technological terms you are a dinosaur.
An OVF helps you compose, an EVF helps you compose AND expose images. Guess who wins.
Not quite that simple
EVF's are quite good in low light to a point (in very low light they can lag), but they are dimmer in normal light
DR wise they do have issues with harsh lighting and they vary a lot from maker to maker, Sony tend to go for speed of display at the expense of some clarity and detail the Fuji and Panasonic EVF's I've used look quite different.
Having an exposure preview is useful (except for flash where it's of no use), though I never had much problem with an OVF once you know how the metering works it's not usually a problem (the D7000 was as it had a wonky meter) It's never a case of black and white and for every EVF advantage there is a disadvantage too. I can use them but it's hard to beat a good pentaprism VF for detail and clarity
-
Hans your argument is permanent from people who are used to OVF, but such generation will vanish soon. Today's young people started taking pictures with a digital compact camera or mobile, and they will complain much more at having to use the rudimentary DLSR exposure meter than at not having such a bright OVF they never used (BTW my EVF is far more bright than any OVF in low light conditions). In technological terms you are a dinosaur.
An OVF helps you compose, an EVF helps you compose AND expose images. Guess who wins.
Sure, I'm a dinosaur, I'm just waiting for the next meteor :) I don't think my opinion works for everybody. I'm sure as I have said previously that EVF's will advance to a point that even I will prefer them when the rest of the system works as well as the current DSLR's. I'm not trying to convince those who prefer EVF's. For exposure I would much prefer a lightmeter that can expose to my wishes rather than look at histograms in the view finder.
-
I'm old enough to be a dinosaur! For my outdoor stuff I pretty much use a tripod so camera stability is assured. One thing I've found with my little Canon S90 is that I don't get the additional support of having the camera braced against my face as I would with a DSLR and as a result my images are not as sharp as they would normally be (of course this is mostly for walking around so it's not as critical). Some of the mirrorless cameras have a view finder (one forum member talked to me via email about his experience with the Sony a6000) so maybe this would work for me in terms of adding stability during the image capture. However, my colleague also noted that battery life with the a6000 "sucked" When my wife and I travel abroad I take my Nikon D300 with the 16-85 zoom and a 24mm prime lens (primarily for walking around street shooting). It's worked well and not all that heavy.
I'm caught betwixt and between in terms of making an additional investment in a new mirrorless camera either as an additional setup or a replacement, particularly as I have a lot of Nikon lenses (including legacies from the film days) that work well.