Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Ray on October 14, 2014, 11:54:07 pm
-
I read this article from Kevin with interest because the problems of equipment weight and size can be an issue, especially as one gets older.
However, those of us who are a bit obsessed with fundamental image quality (from the technical perspective) tend to be reluctant to downsize and sacrifice the image quality we are used to and appreciate, at least I am.
When reading Kevin's article, I was struck by the following comment.
Kevin writes:
"The 100-300mm easily fit into this pocket. How cool is that? I was walking around with a 600mm equivalent lens in my pocket."
Kevin then goes on to show 2 images comparing the size of a Nikon D800-E with a monstrous Tamron 150-600mm zoom attached, and the Olympus OMD E-M1 with the very much smaller Panasonic 100-300 zoom attached, describing the 100-300 zoom as equivalent to a 200-600 and asking, "Which System would you want to carry all day?"
It occurred to me, when I saw these images, that they are a bit misleading, especially for 'newbies' who may not be au fait with the significance and ramifications of so-called 'full-frame lens equivalence'.
So, out of curiosity and for my own benefit, I've done my own comparison to see how significant are the benefits of a lighter system such as the OMD E-M1, with 100-300 zoom, compared with a D800E, which is a camera I own.
The first point that is necessary to understand, when making comparisons between different formats of cameras, is that there's not necessarily any difference between a manufacturer's crop of the sensor and your own crop of the image from a larger-format sensor, depending on pixel density.
The pixel density of the E-M1 is greater than that of the D800E,. therefore when we crop the image from the D800E to the same size and format of the E-M1 image, so that both images have an identical angle of view, the D800E will have the disadvantage of slightly fewer pixels, approximately 9.4 mp compared with the 16 mp of the E-M1. However, in terms of angle of view, that massive 150-600 lens on the D800E becomes the equivalent of a 300-1200 mm lens in relation to the sensor size and format of the E-M1. Equivalence works both ways.
So, with this in mind, I wondered what the real trades-off would be if we were to compare a D800E with Nikon AF-S 70-300 VR F4.5-5.6, and the E-M1 with Panasonic 100-300 F4-F5.6. (I can't find an exactly equivalent zoom lens of 100-300 for the Nikon.)
The obvious advantage is the lower cost of the E-M1 system of course, but what about the other advantages of weight, image quality and effective zoom range?
The weight of the E-M1 with 100-300 zoom will be about 729 gms lighter than the D800E with Nikkor zoom attached. That's noticeably but not particularly significant for me, especially when compared with the 'effective' wider range of a 70-300 on the D800E, or even a 100-300 if such a lens were available.
One can always crop an image to get a narrower angle of view, but getting a wider angle of view than the limits of one's lens and sensor, requires stitching, which is not always practical when trying to capture the moment, or whenever the subject is moving.
A 100-300 zoom on the D800E gives one the flexibility, in terms of E-M1 equivalence, of a 50-300 zoom. A 70-300 gives one the equivalence of 35-300 mm. That's a much more useful range than 100-300 on the E-M1. In other words, in order to get the same angle of view with a 100 mm lens on the E-M1, as one would get with a 100 mm lens on the D800E with no cropping, one would need to use a 50 mm lens.
So, already that additional 720 gms of weight might be justified. We've effectively doubled the zoom range of the lens on the D800E.
But what about image quality? I think it's reasonable to assume that at maximum zoom, after cropping the D800E image to only 9.4 mp, the E-M1 image at 16mp will be sharper, at least in the centre. At the edges and corners probably not. How much sharper would be interesting to see.
However, the reverse would be true as we move towards a wider angle of view. For example, if one is using the E-M1 at 150mm, one would not attempt to get the same angle of view by using the lens on the D800E at 150mm then crop to 9.4 mp. One would use the lens on the D800E at 300mm, then crop slightly to get a 4/3 aspect ratio if that was desired. A 30 mp image is likely to be significantly sharper than a 16 mp image, and the same applies to all focal lengths between 150 and 50 mm (or 150 mm and 35 mm). There will be some crossover point between 150mm and 300mm where the E-M1 begins to appear sharper than the cropped D800E image. That crossover point might be around 250 mm, but I'm just guessing of course.
In summary, if Kevin had shown an image of the D800E attached to a Nikkor 70-300 lens and asked "Which System would you want to carry all day?", I would have replied, definitely the D800E because of its significantly wider zoom range, significantly higher resolution between 35 mm and 150 mm, and significantly lower noise and higher DR across most of that zoom range. ;)
-
But what about image quality? I think it's reasonable to assume that at maximum zoom, after cropping the D800E image to only 9.4 mp, the E-M1 image at 16mp will be sharper, at least in the centre. At the edges and corners probably not. How much sharper would be interesting to see.
D800e does not have EFCS, E-M1 has... so unless you bolt your D800e to a big cinder block it ain't give you 36mp or 9.x mp either... good luck... PS: do not suggest D810 either - you need to mirror up to use it.
-
D800e does not have EFCS, E-M1 has... so unless you bolt your D800e to a big cinder block it ain't give you 36mp or 9.x mp either... good luck... PS: do not suggest D810 either - you need to mirror up to use it.
Good point, but this is a separate issue which applies only in specific circumstances when a slow shutter speed and/or tripod is required. My understanding is that mirror slap has a noticeable effect on resolution only at relatively slow shutter speeds, on a tripod, between roughly 1/2 a second to 1/30th, and maybe very marginally between 1 sec and 1/60th, depending on camera model. Hand-holding a camera dampens mirror slap, and I suspect it also dampens shutter vibration.
I've never tested for the effects of shutter vibration on my D800E. Do you have any links to specific and reliable information which demonstrates the problem? For optimum resolution with my D800E at 300mm, using a VR lens hand-held, I would attempt to use a shutter speed in excess of 1/FL, say 1/500th or 1/640, but I believe I can often get good results at 1/FL, but not so reliably.
I don't believe shutter vibration would be a problem at such speeds. If you think it would be, I'm prepared to do some testing, because I'd like to know.
-
Where these weight / size comparisons fall apart is in trying to define "equivalence" and applying that to the decisions someone makes when hauling around camera equipment. It is fine for trying to discuss fair forum comparisons, but I find it has little to do with the end result: What equipment will someone actually take when heading out with a specific camera system, and what is required including bags and accessory equipment?
Lens choice isn't done in a vacuum. My technical camera system weighs less than my DSLR system, but the lenses aren't close to the same thing. I don't have a 14-24 zoom that weighs 1000 gms on the tech camera, and not only because one doesn't exist; I use the cameras differently and hence have no need for a zoom with the tech camera. On the other hand, I don't carry an almost 2 lb "normal" lens with my DSLR like I do with the technical camera.
Same with my Sony a7r vs. DSLR. I could use my 70-200 f/4 on the Sony, but I don't; instead I simply take a 90 f/2 prime. Why? Because it is an option that is so much smaller and lighter, the zoom wouldn't focus well at all, and the 90 f/2 is really, really good. You could argue that I could carry a prime with the DSLR too, but in the context of a fast, accurate-focusing DSLR the zoom makes a lot of sense because I can take better advantage of its versatility.
Kevin is putting effectively a very long telephoto in his pocket. No bag, lens case, etc. When considering everything that goes with someone into the field, that is a big difference. The choices we make, especially when it comes to lenses are influenced by a whole lot of factors, many of them not directly related to the lens itself.
Dave
-
I am not sure what the point Ray is trying to make. This was an article about my experience using the Olympus system. It was a fun two weeks and a lot of fun to use and a heck of a lot lighter than my Nikon system. While you can do all the math you want, the point I am making is that full frame in the Olympus with the zoom 100-300mm lens I was using is the same as using 200-600 on a full frame DSLR. The closest lens I had in my extensive Nikon Lens arsenal was the Tamron 150 - 600mm. Simply put I could have taken a higher resolution Nikon D800 system out on the streets of London and Cologne but I wouldn't have been able to get the shot of the boy with the red balloon or the girl against a column. Number one it would have been very hard to hand hold the shot, and I would have been very visible. There is a huge difference in the end of a 16mp vs a 36mp resolution file and because of this I still have my Nikon system. But the convenience as well as the light weight easy to use system was so very nice.
I know what I see when I look through both systems. I get the shot I'm looking for and in the end that is all that counts. I have also made a number of 17x22 inch prints from images made during the trip and they are tack sharp. I have also pushed the long edge width to 30 inches on my 9900 printer. The print while acceptable has reached a point where it is beginning to go soft. I really enjoyed the Olympus and it is a very customizable and versatile camera system, I can't wait for the 40-150mm pro lens and 1.4 tele extender.
I head for Scotland in less that two weeks. On this trip the Fuji X-T1 will get a work out. I'll do a similar story on my return.
Kevin Raber
-
Kevin...
There's math and then there's photography. Never confuse the two. :)
Michael
-
Good point, but this is a separate issue which applies only in specific circumstances when a slow shutter speed and/or tripod is required. My understanding is that mirror slap has a noticeable effect on resolution only at relatively slow shutter speeds, on a tripod, between roughly 1/2 a second to 1/30th, and maybe very marginally between 1 sec and 1/60th, depending on camera model. Hand-holding a camera dampens mirror slap, and I suspect it also dampens shutter vibration.
EFCS is not about mirror flap (and E-M1 has no mirror either)... shutter shock effect is noticealbe till 1/200 at least... but with dSLRs (Canons, Nikon 810) you can't use EFCS in a normal operation - your have to use LV (mirror up) - not sure what prevents them from using EFCS in a regular operation.
I've never tested for the effects of shutter vibration on my D800E. Do you have any links to specific and reliable information which demonstrates the problem? For optimum resolution with my D800E at 300mm, using a VR lens hand-held, I would attempt to use a shutter speed in excess of 1/FL, say 1/500th or 1/640, but I believe I can often get good results at 1/FL, but not so reliably.
try search for A7r and D8** @ blog.kasson.com (the author is participating in LuLa forums)
-
EFCS is not about mirror flap (and E-M1 has no mirror either)... shutter shock effect is noticealbe till 1/200 at least... but with dSLRs (Canons, Nikon 810) you can't use EFCS in a normal operation - your have to use LV (mirror up) - not sure what prevents them from using EFCS in a regular operation.
try search for A7r and D8** @ blog.kasson.com (the author is participating in LuLa forums)
The Canon and Nikon D810 works differently with EFCS. The Canons always have EFCS available in LV, but D810 only with the top left dial on MUP. And EFCS on the D810 is available also with MUP outside of LV which the Canons does not.
-
I am not sure what the point Ray is trying to make. This was an article about my experience using the Olympus system. It was a fun two weeks and a lot of fun to use and a heck of a lot lighter than my Nikon system. While you can do all the math you want, the point I am making is that full frame in the Olympus with the zoom 100-300mm lens I was using is the same as using 200-600 on a full frame DSLR. The closest lens I had in my extensive Nikon Lens arsenal was the Tamron 150 - 600mm. Simply put I could have taken a higher resolution Nikon D800 system out on the streets of London and Cologne but I wouldn't have been able to get the shot of the boy with the red balloon or the girl against a column. Number one it would have been very hard to hand hold the shot, and I would have been very visible. There is a huge difference in the end of a 16mp vs a 36mp resolution file and because of this I still have my Nikon system. But the convenience as well as the light weight easy to use system was so very nice.
I know what I see when I look through both systems. I get the shot I'm looking for and in the end that is all that counts. I have also made a number of 17x22 inch prints from images made during the trip and they are tack sharp. I have also pushed the long edge width to 30 inches on my 9900 printer. The print while acceptable has reached a point where it is beginning to go soft. I really enjoyed the Olympus and it is a very customizable and versatile camera system, I can't wait for the 40-150mm pro lens and 1.4 tele extender.
I head for Scotland in less that two weeks. On this trip the Fuji X-T1 will get a work out. I'll do a similar story on my return.
Kevin Raber
I think his point was pretty clear. Such comparisons will always make such comments unless the text mentions the pros and cons of using one system over the other. For those not really understanding the differences between different systems and especially the implications of sensor size such comparisons can be quite misleading. A bit like the video of the mirrorless cameras where a huge Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 on a D800E was put next to a Sony with f/4 lenses ;) Not quite comparable. It's not about math, it's about comparing apples to apples (or at least close to) ;) As I mentioned in that thread some time ago, if you took a Canon full frame system with f/4 lenses and compared to Sony A7R with similar f/4 lenses, then the weight difference would be only 20%. Not a big deal. I think these articles would benefit from being a bit less sensational in the writing and presentation. Just my 2cents :)
-
The Canon and Nikon D810 works differently with EFCS. The Canons always have EFCS available in LV, but D810 only with the top left dial on MUP. And EFCS on the D810 is available also with MUP outside of LV which the Canons does not.
sure, however the point is - you can't do a regular shooting (think street - not landscapes where you can prefocus, then mirror up, etc) using optical viewfinder (and PDAF) with EFCS and in many cases you find yourself in a shutter shock prone zone of exposure speeds doing it handheld... with mirrorless cameras you can (may be with Sony SLT too - not sure about that)... I am not sure what is the reason behind this... may be for dSLRs mirror slap is way bigger than shutter shock and it simply makes no sense to bother for a regular shooting
-
it's about comparing apples to apples
comparing apples to apples might be from the scientific POV or from the point of view of what you will take with you... walking around with dSLR and 70-200/4 zoom ? no thank you... unless I need that to fend off some zombies.
-
sure, however the point is - you can't do a regular shooting (think street - not landscapes where you can prefocus, then mirror up, etc) using optical viewfinder (and PDAF) with EFCS and in many cases you find yourself in a shutter shock prone zone of exposure speeds doing it handheld... with mirrorless cameras you can (may be with Sony SLT too - not sure about that)... I am not sure what is the reason behind this... may be for dSLRs mirror slap is way bigger than shutter shock and it simply makes no sense to bother for a regular shooting
Sure, except you didn't make that point in your post ;) I simply pointed out how EFCS works on Canons (within the last 5 years) and the only Nikon with EFCS D810.
-
comparing apples to apples might be from the scientific POV or from the point of view of what you will take with you... walking around with dSLR and 70-200/4 zoom ? no thank you... unless I need that to fend off some zombies.
The point made was to make a comparison so that the pros and cons are understood. For some not needed, but for others absolutely needed. There is a huge sacrifice in IQ between the Nikon D800E and the Olympus 4/3 camera. Likely the real resolution is about 3x higher on the Nikon. There are many things to consider in a comparison between systems including how to compare lenses. An f/2.8 lens on a 4/3 system is not equivalent to a f/2.8 lens on a 35mm full frame camera. I'm sure you know that but the lesser informed may not quite understand that or even notice. The DOF for 4/3 at f/2.8 is closely the same as f/5.6 on 35mm full frame. So compare lenses that are equivalent which makes a huge difference in weight and size. Some shoot street disguised and others do not which also makes a big difference in what camera you will pick up.
-
The point made was to make a comparison so that the pros and cons are understood. For some not needed, but for others absolutely needed.
Kevin simply described his personal experience shooting the two formats. I don't believe it was meant to be a technical comparison.
There is a huge sacrifice in IQ between the Nikon D800E and the Olympus 4/3 camera. Likely the real resolution is about 3x higher on the Nikon. There are many things to consider in a comparison between systems including how to compare lenses...
Again, your head is stuck in technical comparison, not the photography process. For a photographer, if a tool can reasonably achieve intended image, then it's the tool she is going to grab when she goes out and shoot. Many of your 'significant' differences, such as pixel density, resolution, DR, evaporate rapidly in the real world. In the real world, what we have are shaky hands, fast moving kids, project deadlines, picture viewing environment, viewing distance, intended audience, etc, etc. Unfortunately, these really important factors are not easily quantifiable. So that left online warriors focus on these technical aspects of the tools.
-
Kevin simply described his personal experience shooting the two formats. I don't believe it was meant to be a technical comparison.
Again, your head is stuck in technical comparison, not the photography process. For a photographer, if a tool can reasonably achieve intended image, then it's the tool she is going to grab when she goes out and shoot. Many of your 'significant' differences, such as pixel density, resolution, DR, evaporate rapidly in the real world. In the real world, what we have are shaky hands, fast moving kids, project deadlines, picture viewing environment, viewing distance, intended audience, etc, etc. Unfortunately, these really important factors are not easily quantifiable. So that left online warriors focus on these technical aspects of the tools.
Taking that argument to its logical extension, we can start showing pictures of a Hasselblad and an iPhone and ask which one is preferable to take with you.
-
Hi,
Kevin shoots both MFD and APS/C, so I guess he knows a thing or two about formats.
My take is that if I would feel that the a 4/3 system does the job and does it at 1/3 the weight, I would go for it. Quite probably, 4/3 is quite OK for A2 size prints, in an interview Ctein states this is the case, and who am I to argue? Some of my best prints printed at A2 are from 12 MP APS-C.
On the other hand, I generally want the best image quality I can afford, and that goes in the direction of larger formats.
Finally, whatever equipment we use, it is important to make best use of it. I regard the tripod as one of the essential pieces of my equipment.
Best regards
Erik
The point made was to make a comparison so that the pros and cons are understood. For some not needed, but for others absolutely needed. There is a huge sacrifice in IQ between the Nikon D800E and the Olympus 4/3 camera. Likely the real resolution is about 3x higher on the Nikon. There are many things to consider in a comparison between systems including how to compare lenses. An f/2.8 lens on a 4/3 system is not equivalent to a f/2.8 lens on a 35mm full frame camera. I'm sure you know that but the lesser informed may not quite understand that or even notice. The DOF for 4/3 at f/2.8 is closely the same as f/5.6 on 35mm full frame. So compare lenses that are equivalent which makes a huge difference in weight and size. Some shoot street disguised and others do not which also makes a big difference in what camera you will pick up.
-
The point made was to make a comparison so that the pros and cons are understood. For some not needed, but for others absolutely needed. There is a huge sacrifice in IQ between the Nikon D800E and the Olympus 4/3 camera. Likely the real resolution is about 3x higher on the Nikon.
I am not sure how did you come to 3x higher with 36mp camera w/o EFCS (and mirror slapping in street shooting) with mutually compensating AA filters (instead of not having it) vs 16mp camera with EFCS and no mirror to think about and really w/o any AA filter... somthing is wrong with both math and logic... and I am not even talking about PDAF precision of its focusing points vs CDAF precision in any point of the frame w/ any AF lens of any aperture under any light specturm w/o AF tuning of any kind...
-
Hi,
Kevin shoots both MFD and APS/C, so I guess he knows a thing or two about formats.
My take is that if I would feel that the a 4/3 system does the job and does it at 1/3 the weight, I would go for it. Quite probably, 4/3 is quite OK for A2 size prints, in an interview Ctein states this is the case, and who am I to argue? Some of my best prints printed at A2 are from 12 MP APS-C.
On the other hand, I generally want the best image quality I can afford, and that goes in the direction of larger formats.
Finally, whatever equipment we use, it is important to make best use of it. I regard the tripod as one of the essential pieces of my equipment.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, I would not disagree with your viewpoints as such. My comment was a critique to the essay that Kevin wrote. I cannot read into this what Kevin should or should not know.
-
Kevin simply described his personal experience shooting the two formats. I don't believe it was meant to be a technical comparison.
Again, your head is stuck in technical comparison, not the photography process. For a photographer, if a tool can reasonably achieve intended image, then it's the tool she is going to grab when she goes out and shoot. Many of your 'significant' differences, such as pixel density, resolution, DR, evaporate rapidly in the real world. In the real world, what we have are shaky hands, fast moving kids, project deadlines, picture viewing environment, viewing distance, intended audience, etc, etc. Unfortunately, these really important factors are not easily quantifiable. So that left online warriors focus on these technical aspects of the tools.
If Kevin was writing on a forum that would be fine, but now this is an article on LuLa and therefore the expectation is different. If he cares about feedback or not is his business. I think he does.
My comment was on technical comparisons and therefore technical comments. You are right about tradeoffs and we all make them. I think you are inherently wrong about your comment on technical differences.
-
Hi,
Yes some good points. Regarding the EFCS, Nikon now has EFCS on the D810, but even the D800 was well damped according to research by Jim Kasson. Regarding the OLP filter, in my view this is simple BS. There is no difference in IQ between D800E and D810. The OLP filtering matters if you shoot at f/5.6 on tripod and MLU, but once you stop down to f/8 or f/11 I am pretty sure the difference is gone, due to diffraction.
Extracting high resolution is simply hard work.
I would say, that is very clear that the Nikon D810, my P45+ or any 80 MP back is way ahead any 4/3 camera with precision work and the stars in the right alignment. Anything less, it may not matter a lot.
If you don't see the results in presentation, why care?
Best regards
Erik
I am not sure how did you come to 3x higher with 36mp camera w/o EFCS (and mirror slapping in street shooting) with mutually compensating AA filters (instead of not having it) vs 16mp camera with EFCS and no mirror to think about and really w/o any AA filter... somthing is wrong with both math and logic... and I am not even talking about PDAF precision of its focusing points vs CDAF precision in any point of the frame w/ any AF lens of any aperture under any light specturm w/o AF tuning of any kind...
-
I am not sure how did you come to 3x higher with 36mp camera w/o EFCS (and mirror slapping in street shooting) with mutually compensating AA filters (instead of not having it) vs 16mp camera with EFCS and no mirror to think about and really w/o any AA filter... somthing is wrong with both math and logic... and I am not even talking about PDAF precision of its focusing points vs CDAF precision in any point of the frame w/ any AF lens of any aperture under any light specturm w/o AF tuning of any kind...
You are mixing up a few things here. If you look at DxO measurements on a D800E and a D7000 you will find that the calculated averaged MP for the D800E and Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR is 30 MP and for the D7000 which is a 16MP crop camera the same calculated MP rating is 9MP. Since the 4/3 sensor is even smaller I would expect that a DxO measurement if there were any (!) would show even less resolution. That's how a came to what I believe is a conervative 3x difference in real resolution. It's clear that any good photographer will have to take ideal resolution into account with shooting situations. Is it on a tripod or low light. The first will most likely give you ideal resolution. The second less, but likely a huge difference still betwen a D800E and a 4/3 camera. is it good enough for the purpose and is it convenient for your needs? That is a totally different consideration and the D800E may not be the preferred choice in a given situation. CDAF may not even give you the shot where PDAF does in most cases and with very good precision. What argue about this? Ask yourself: why does Michael shoot with a Pentax 645z? Probably because this Fuji or Olympus does not cut it. Will always take the Pentax out, no. I may not believe that the Pentax is that much better than the Nikon D810 with the best lenses, but I'm sure there is a difference that will be seen. Is it enough for me to invest in a Pentax system, probably not, because I have different reasons to invest in a camera system. But to argue there is little difference between camera systems is just that.....unproductive. So my main point was really about making comparisons that make sense rather than sensationalism to draw up the line a bit hard.
-
Rhetorical questions:
What's so difficult to grasp about the concept of different camera/lens systems for different purposes?
Why do some of us perceive gear preferences held & expressed by others as existential threats?
Why do we keep having essentially this same fruitless "discussion" repeatedly?
-Dave-
-
You are mixing up a few things here. If you look at DxO measurements on a D800E and a D7000 you will find that the calculated averaged MP for the D800E and Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR is 30 MP ...
You're using the DxO M-pix rating which is a proprietary, undisclosed rating system. Measuring DR, SNR, tonal range or colour sensitivity gives a quantifiable result. M-pix is, as currently disclosed, at least partly subjective.
Your 30Mpix rating for the Nikon f4 zoom should also be judged against the Zeiss 100/f2 macro (23) , the Nikon 50/f1.8 (23) and several other outliers. Perhaps an indication to some, but not a statistic I'd use to base any decision on.
-
I am not sure what the point Ray is trying to make......the point I am making is that full frame in the Olympus with the zoom 100-300mm lens I was using is the same as using 200-600 on a full frame DSLR.
Kevin Raber
Kevin,
The point that I am making is that this is simply not true and you're admitting as much in the same post when you write :
There is a huge difference in the end of a 16mp vs a 36mp resolution file...
That huge difference would be realized if you were to use a 200-600mm lens with a D800E. However, if a 16mp file is big enough for you because you rarely make huge prints, then a 100-300 lens on the D800E could, on balance, do a better job than a 100-300 lens on the E-M1, assuming one is sufficiently skilled to engage in post-processing such as cropping, which I assume you are. ;)
At the long end, the E-M1 would have a slight advantage because the cropped D800E file, with the same field of view, would be only 9.4 mp, but at focal lengths wider than, say, 250mm on the E-M1, the D800E would begin to have the resolution advantage all the way to a 50mm equivalent focal length (in relation to the E-M1), which couldn't be achieved with the E-M1 without stitching, assuming you are using a 100-300 zoom.
Is that clear enough? ;)
-
My reasoning: you are doing a trip to make photographs - Then it can happen you make this beautiful shot that you would like to enlarge big- or that needs more detail... you do not know beforehand what you will encounter.
In that case you like to have the best camera available that is easy enough to carry around. For me it is the Nikon d800e... or now d810... I do not think that these cameras are too heavy or to big. I take them into the mountains and anywhere. In fact i do everything with it. It is the camera i know inside out . That is important to me - just to know ONE camera well you think is worth knowing. I do not want my head filled with too much menu clutter of different camera types mixing it all up at some point. i want to use the camera in a reflex.
About the missing of EFS in the d800e - I have used the d800e without any problems with wide, normal and portrait lenses in all circumstances for two years...
I noticed that shuttershake may become of some influence with lenses from 200mm and above.
PS it is different when you shoot people - than i would like a camera with a smaller presence.( maybe the sony 7- completely silent)
-
Hi,
I had an interesting experience, some while ago.
I found a nice spot to shoot, the view was beautiful but light was scarce and it was windy. So I first shot with my Sony Alpha 900 and a 100-300 zoom at 120 mm at perhaps 5.6. That camera is full frame 24 MP.
After that I started to think about shooting with My Sony Alpha 55, that camera is APS-C, 16 MP if I recall. With that camera I had live view (more accurate focus), better high ISO capability and I could use a 24-70/2.8 lens giving me a bit more DoF, aperture and better high ISO capability.
Printed both in A2, it was really hard to choose between the two, but it was the APS-C image that made it to the wall. Would I have printed larger it would be a different case.
I feel that Kevin has a good point, a well designed small format system makes for a small, portable and still capable kit.
Obviously a well designed system with a larger sensor size will mostly be even more capable.
Best regards
Erik
You are mixing up a few things here. If you look at DxO measurements on a D800E and a D7000 you will find that the calculated averaged MP for the D800E and Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR is 30 MP and for the D7000 which is a 16MP crop camera the same calculated MP rating is 9MP. Since the 4/3 sensor is even smaller I would expect that a DxO measurement if there were any (!) would show even less resolution. That's how a came to what I believe is a conervative 3x difference in real resolution. It's clear that any good photographer will have to take ideal resolution into account with shooting situations. Is it on a tripod or low light. The first will most likely give you ideal resolution. The second less, but likely a huge difference still betwen a D800E and a 4/3 camera. is it good enough for the purpose and is it convenient for your needs? That is a totally different consideration and the D800E may not be the preferred choice in a given situation. CDAF may not even give you the shot where PDAF does in most cases and with very good precision. What argue about this? Ask yourself: why does Michael shoot with a Pentax 645z? Probably because this Fuji or Olympus does not cut it. Will always take the Pentax out, no. I may not believe that the Pentax is that much better than the Nikon D810 with the best lenses, but I'm sure there is a difference that will be seen. Is it enough for me to invest in a Pentax system, probably not, because I have different reasons to invest in a camera system. But to argue there is little difference between camera systems is just that.....unproductive. So my main point was really about making comparisons that make sense rather than sensationalism to draw up the line a bit hard.
-
Rhetorical questions:
What's so difficult to grasp about the concept of different camera/lens systems for different purposes?
Why do some of us perceive gear preferences held & expressed by others as existential threats?
Why do we keep having essentially this same fruitless "discussion" repeatedly?
-Dave-
I agree completely with Dave. This thread is a perfect example of the worst aspects of this (generally valuable) forum, the incessant fussing and obsessing with the technical trivia that have nothing to do with good photography. Geez, people, eat a bran muffin and wash it down with a martini. Go take some beautiful photos and DO NOT peep at those pixels!
-
Hi,
I don't know. Personally, if I shoot a great image I want to be able to print large. On the other hand there are other things, like I really like equipment I can carry, and I don't want to spend all my money on equipment, but also on travel.
Best regards
Erik
I agree completely with Dave. This thread is a perfect example of the worst aspects of this (generally valuable) forum, the incessant fussing and obsessing with the technical trivia that have nothing to do with good photography. Geez, people, eat a bran muffin and wash it down with a martini. Go take some beautiful photos and DO NOT peep at those pixels!
-
I feel that Kevin has a good point, a well designed small format system makes for a small, portable and still capable kit.
Obviously a well designed system with a larger sensor size will mostly be even more capable.
Hi Erik,
I agree completely. The best tool for the job should apply, as always. The issue I've raised relates only to Kevin's equating of a massively bulky and heavy D800E with 150-600 Tamron zoom attached, with the clearly much lighter and easier-to-handle E-M1 with 100-300 zoom attached.
He created the impression in his article that these two options were equivalent, and that choosing the lighter E-M1 option would be a no-brainer in the circumstances.
Now, for anyone who shoots jpegs and never crops, such a comparison might make sense. But I'm not such a person. If you are prepared to crop, and if you are shooting images with an understanding that you have complete control over the 'effective' sensor format of your camera through cropping, then the main issue would be the resolution of the cropped image from the larger sensor.
At 300mm the E-M1 would probably be noticeably better than the 9.4mp crop from the D800E with 300mm lens. On the other hand, the 16mp image from the E-M1 used at 100mm focal length, would not have nearly the resolution of the 36mp D800E image with the 100-300 lens used at the equivalent focal length of 200mm.
In other words, the improved image quality from the D800E towards the wide end of the 100-300 zoom should be more significant than the loss of quality at the long end.
Of course, there are other issues such as shutter shock, shutter noise, and fundamental lens quality.
It would be interesting to see test images demonstrating the significance of such factors.
-
Rhetorical questions:
What's so difficult to grasp about the concept of different camera/lens systems for different purposes?
Why do some of us perceive gear preferences held & expressed by others as existential threats?
Why do we keep having essentially this same fruitless "discussion" repeatedly?
-Dave-
Amen
-
Rhetorical question:
Why do people feel the need to justify their choice of gear with spurious technical arguments?
-
I agree completely with Dave. This thread is a perfect example of the worst aspects of this (generally valuable) forum, the incessant fussing and obsessing with the technical trivia that have nothing to do with good photography. Geez, people, eat a bran muffin and wash it down with a martini. Go take some beautiful photos and DO NOT peep at those pixels!
Sorry Peter, but this comment is as predictable on this forum as the technical discucsions :) I'm now off to lead another workshop in Abruzzo and Umbria Italy and will concentrate on taking beautiful photos with the group :)
It's just ironic that many of the people saying not to look at pixels also comment on pixels ;) Why is it so binary? It should be so clear that to make photographs you need a tool and the tool should should be chosen for the job, but the qualities of the tool cannot be ignored. There it also need to be discussed.
-
Rhetorical question:
Why do people feel the need to justify their choice of gear with spurious technical arguments?
I don't think it is like that.
-
I don't think it is like that.
Well, I know I find reasons why the gear I chose for emotional reasons is "objectively" the best ;D
-
Hi,
I don't necessarily feel that I have the best equipment for my needs. But:
- I don't exactly know what my needs are. I always wanted a Horsman VH-R but bought a Pentax 67.
- Switching systems is expensive. Do I spend 15k on a new system or just add a 1500$ lens?
Was it not for budget, I would build my system from scratch. Right now, I don't even know where I would start.
Right now, I am interested in Sony A# with those Loxia lenses.
- Why? Because it is full frame, has EVF and takes the Loxia lenses
- Why not? Because I am not so impressed by the A7r
- Why Loxia? Because I am interested in manual focus and don't need large apertures. Also the Loxias are made for Sony.
So I'm waiting for a better version of the Sony A7r.
Best regards
Erik
Well, I know I find reasons why the gear I chose for emotional reasons is "objectively" the best ;D
-
Well, Always interesting to see how these discussions go. I enjoy the benefit of having a lot of gear. Comes with the job. What I enjoy more is taking the picture and the pictures I shot with the Olympus on the trip were great. And, they were shared in the article. I have 3 17x22 inch prints ready to go up in my office this weekend. The whole debate on the 100-300 vs 150- 600 lens was about size of the lens to accomplish the same look. I know what I saw though my lens and I know what lens it would have taken to get the equivalent look in the viewfinder and file. The image quality is very good. And, when it come to image quality I think 13 years of working with the largest MF camera sensors available has given me some insight into what image quality is all about.
I'm off next week to lead a PODAS workshop with Steve Golsing and Joe Cornish in Scotland. We'll be shooting MF Camera as will all attendees. I'll also have my Fuji XT-1 along for fun and to run it though its paces. I'll let you know how it does.
Kevin Raber
-
Well, Always interesting to see how these discussions go. I enjoy the benefit of having a lot of gear. Comes with the job. What I enjoy more is taking the picture and the pictures I shot with the Olympus on the trip were great. And, they were shared in the article.
This is the right answer! Some of us may have the resources to purchase multiple sets of gear but choose not to for various reasons. Even a camera upgrade (one that I'm considering as I have lots of good Nikon lenses) requires careful consideration. Would I like to have several different format size cameras? Absolutely. Will I? Probably not.
-
I am not sure what the point Ray is trying to make.
Exactly!
-
What's so difficult to grasp about the concept of different camera/lens systems for different purposes?
Why do we ask rhetorical questions? To distract the reader from the unstated premises (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question) our assertions are based upon.
Nothing in particular is "difficult to grasp about the concept of different camera/lens systems for different purposes" and that doesn't tell us that it is the most viable approach for someone else, or the most used approach, or the most useful approach.
Why do some of us perceive gear preferences held & expressed by others as existential threats?
Rather than presume those nameless individuals have a personality defect, the simpler explanation is that they disagree with the reasons given for the preferences expressed by others.
Why do we keep having essentially this same fruitless "discussion" repeatedly?
We like talking about things we think we're knowledgeable about. The same discussion is not "fruitless" because the world changes and that gives the "same" discussion a different basis.
-
Like many of us, I am getting older and interested in lightening my load. I had been shooting the Canon 5Dii, with an array of L lenses, including the 24-105 zoom. The E-M1 with the 12-40 zoom is significantly easier for me to carry for extended periods. Now, working with the E-m1 and the 12-40 mm zoom, I find that the print quality is superior in every way to the 5Dii, up to at least 17x22 in. There probably is some threshold print size at which the 5Dii will begin to make better prints. Recently, many praised the 5Dii, now something else is better. And I admit it, I still want something that can support giant prints. But the point here is that there is a useful range of situations in which the E-M1 excels. Can you find something that is better in that range? Maybe.
I doubt there are many posters on this forum for whom their equipment is limiting their photography, whatever they are shooting.
-
I doubt there are many posters on this forum for whom their equipment is limiting their photography, whatever they are shooting.
Exactamundo! When I look at my many photos that seemed to have promise but just did not "make it" in the end, it is NEVER because there aren't enough pixels or they aren't sharp enough (excepting obvious things like focus errors and camera shake). Rather, it's bad composition, poor lighting, wrong time of day, poorly chosen subject, etc. One must have "reasonable" equipment, of course, but in today's hyper-competitive camera market there really are no bad cameras. There are, however, lots of bad photographers, many of them hauling around D810s and whatever glass that DXO tells them is best. My main interest is photography. If yours is equipment, so be it, but it's not the same thing.
-
Exactamundo! When I look at my many photos that seemed to have promise but just did not "make it" in the end, it is NEVER because there aren't enough pixels or they aren't sharp enough (excepting obvious things like focus errors and camera shake). Rather, it's bad composition, poor lighting, wrong time of day, poorly chosen subject, etc. One must have "reasonable" equipment, of course, but in today's hyper-competitive camera market there really are no bad cameras. There are, however, lots of bad photographers, many of them hauling around D810s and whatever glass that DXO tells them is best. My main interest is photography. If yours is equipment, so be it, but it's not the same thing.
Good photography is helped by good equipment. Good equipment will never harm the good photographer. Good equipment will help the photographer present his work in the best possible way, especially if big prints are needed. For small prints you may not see any difference between a very expensive camera and a rather cheap one. Of course, for the photographer who are not so good or has a bad day or week, equipment does not help. I'll stunned abut these comments that always come along any technical discussion.
-
....it is NEVER because there aren't enough pixels or they aren't sharp enough.... My main interest is photography. If yours is equipment, so be it, but it's not the same thing.
My interest is photography too- and now the better camera only costs about 3000$ so you would be stupid not to buy it...A good camera like the d810 is not only about 36Mp- it is also about dynamic range; 5 fps; autofocus etc...about being able to get the shot you want and as good as possible to todays standards...
I do architecture and 36mp does matter there... but for other type of photographs you only need some pixels to get the message across...
-
I have to say that I'm rather puzzled at the response of certain posters who have expressed difficulty in understanding the points I've raised here, in relation to Kevin's article.
I assure you I am not criticizing the qualities of the E-M1 in any way, or Kevin's interest and enjoyment in taking pictures with a variety of different cameras.
My point was entirely about the misleading comparison Kevin made in the article, describing a D800E with 150-600 Tamron lens attached as being equivalent to the EM-1 with 100-300 lens attached, in relation to the type of images, or more specifically, the range of FoVs that each systems would enable one to capture.
The D800E with Tamron 150-600 weighs about 3 kgs. The E-M1 with Panasonic 100-300 zoom weighs only 1 kg. That's a huge reduction in weight, and a reduction in bulk also. If those two systems are really equivalent, for someone who considers a 16mp file sufficient, then that would be a huge advantage for the E-M1 with a 100-300 lens attached.
The point I've been making is that this concept, that these two camera systems are equivalent, is very misleading for anyone who is not familiar with the general concepts of lens equivalence, FoV and the significance of cropping.
For example, it might be the case that some people reading this article have already bought a D800E and are considering what telephoto lens to buy. They may be attracted to the Tamron 150-600 because of its long reach and because they are interested in birds and wildlife, but are very undecided because of the heavy weight of 3 Kgs, when the lens is attached to the camera, and the general awkwardness of carrying around such a heavy and bulky system.
They read Kevin's article, see the visual comparison between the E-M1 and the Tamoron 150-600 on the D800E, and think, "Wow! I don't need to buy this Tamron 150-600. I'll spend a bit more money and get an E-M1 with Panasonic 100-300 zoom. According to Kevin, It'll produce similar results."
Now, all I'm trying to do here is to apply a little bit of rational thought to such a comparison, in order to help people avoid making the wrong decision in relation to their equipment requirements. I could have kept quiet, and perhaps Kevin would have preferred that, but I'm not that sort of person. I enjoy robust converstaions and the application of rational thought to the process of making equipment purchasing decisions.
If Kevin had shown an image of the D800E attached to a lighter and less bulky Nikkor 80-400 zoom, I would probably not have raised the issue, although I still might have because of the significant wide-angle advantages of a full-frame 80mm focal length compared with the widest 200mm focal length equivalent of the E-M1. However, at the long end, the 80-400 is a closer match to the Panasonic 100-300 on the E-M1.
As I'm sure Kevin is aware, the D800E has a DX mode. In that mode, the Nikkor 80-400 at the long end produces a 16mp image with an effective focal length of 600mm. I doubt that such a 16mp image in DX mode would be inferior in any way to the 300mm shot from the E-M1. In fact, according to DXOMark, the D800E, pixel for pixel, has a full stop greater DR at base ISO, than the E-M1, and 5dB better SNR at 18% grey. 5dB is equivalent to more than 1 stop better, only 1 dB shy of 2 stops better.
However, to be objective, as I always try to be, except when I'm being funny ;D , such differences are greatly diminished above ISO 400, just as they are with Canon cameras.
-
I doubt that such a 16mp image in DX mode would be inferior in any way to the 300mm shot from the E-M1.
again it depends in a lab - no, in a real life it depends, even if each sensel naturally will be as good as in lab... in real life you might end up no taking this weight with you at all :D
-
Ray, you're over-thinking it. Kevin's doing journalism, not writing technical tracts, and the standards of precision are different. Are you saying that you *really* don't know what he meant? Or that you know what he meant, you're just standing up for the ignorant? I don't understand nearly as much about the technical aspects of photography as you do, but I didn't have any trouble understanding the article or the limitations of the article.
If I were going to critique the article, I would say that to my eyes, most of his illustrative photos would have been better shot with the Nikon (the exception, and an excellent one, being the shot of the kid.) That's because Kevin's style is that of a careful, technical photographer, and his pictures reflect that. If you're going for technical excellence, it seems to me that you'd want the highest resolution tool that you could carry, and by that standard, a high end FF camera and high-end lens will generally beat an m4/3 in technical terms. In other words, I'm not sure than an m4/3 really suits Kevin's style, just as I don't think an iPhone would. Sometimes, of course, the extra lightness really counts...but that happens less often, I think, than is sometimes reflected on these forums. I once hauled a Nikon system (D3, D300, two f2.8 zooms and two or three other lenses) around Iraq, jumping in and out of helicopters (and I was 64.) If I were to do a similar trip today, I'd go m4/3 in an instant. But, I did it with the Nikons, and it all worked out fine. I would have appreciated carrying less weight, but I didn't require it. If I were a photographer of Kevin's aesthetic bent (or yours), I think I'd take the weight.
-
again it depends in a lab - no, in a real life it depends, even if each sensel naturally will be as good as in lab... in real life you might end up no taking this weight with you at all :D
Of course. This is where selection of the appropriate lens comes into play. In order to select the appropriate lens for the circumstances, one needs to be aware of all the options which a particular lens will provide in conjunction with the camera's sensor size and pixel density.
In order to make a sensible choice between a D800E with 80-400 lens, and an E-M1 with 100-300 lens, one has to be aware that the E-M1 is incapable of taking a wider shot than 200mm (in full frame terms). There's a huge difference between 80 mm and 200 mm. This is the advantage of that extra weight.
The next option is the much lighter Nikkor 70-300 zoom. This lens with D800E is only 720 gms heavier than the E-M1 with 100-300 zoom, but has the advantage of a much wider angle of view, equal to a 35-300mm lens on the E-M1. It also has a much higher resolution at that wider angle, and all FoVs that approach that, but unfortunately it has the disadvantage of a (probably noticeable) lower resolution at the 600mm end (full-frame equivalent, comparing the 9.4mp crop with the 16mp of the E-M1).
There are always trade-offs. To make a rational decision one should be aware of such trade-offs.
-
Ray, you're over-thinking it. Kevin's doing journalism, not writing technical tracts, and the standards of precision are different. Are you saying that you *really* don't know what he meant? Or that you know what he meant, you're just standing up for the ignorant? I don't understand nearly as much about the technical aspects of photography as you do, but I didn't have any trouble understanding the article or the limitations of the article.
Me? Technical? I'm not technical. I'm just practical. If I appear to be concerned about DR, for example, it's not for any technical reason. It's purely emotional. I simply don't like to see noise in the shadows of my images. It disgusts me.
Nor do I like to make such shadows totally black during processing, in order to hide the noise, except in circumstances where the shadows contain nothing interesting, or are a distraction, and the 'blackness' contributes to the general appeal and impact of the composition.
When I first came across this site about 14 years ago, the 3mp Canon D30 was all the rage, but there was a lot of confusion about the significance of the cropped sensor and how it affected Field of View and Depth of Field, and even shutter speed in relation to the 1/FL rule, because most people were familiar only with the full-frame 35mm format.
All I've done in this thread is deal with some very basic principles relating to the significance of cropping and pixel density.
PS. That must have been quite an experience in Iraq, jumping in and out of helicopters. I bet you wouldn't want to do that with ISIS around, whatever the weight of your camera. ;)
-
Hi!
As a general comment…
I would take a lightweight equipment over a heavy weight equipment any day, if:
- Both equipments gave the same quality
or
- The lightweight equipment gave good enough quality for all my needs
I am pretty sure that both Olympus and Panasonic are well optimised for their sensor size. So if I feel that 16 MP is quite enough for my needs I may as well go with the smallest system.
If I feel I need more pixels, I guess I also may need a larger sensor but that means also a significantly larger system.
BTW, Fuji seems to go between, using APS-C and optimising the system around that sensor size.
Best regards
Erik
-
BTW, Fuji seems to go between, using APS-C and optimising the system around that sensor size.
except deoptimizing it with no EFCS (compensated by slower shutter blades to reduce shutter impact - see slow x-sync ) and xtrans (problems w/ demosaicking)... in this case you might as well go with APS-C from Sony.
-
Yeah, I agree on xtrans.
Still, I feel it is good that Fuji makes lenses for the APS-C sensor. Canon, Nikon and Sony makes a few lenses for APS-C that are pretty good, but most of their lenses are really for full frame. Fuji does a good job on providing APS-C optimised lenses.
Best regards
Erik
except deoptimizing it with no EFCS (compensated by slower shutter blades to reduce shutter impact - see slow x-sync ) and xtrans (problems w/ demosaicking)... in this case you might as well go with APS-C from Sony.
-
Hi!
As a general comment…
I would take a lightweight equipment over a heavy weight equipment any day, if:
- Both equipments gave the same quality
or
- The lightweight equipment gave good enough quality for all my needs
Of course Erik. One can't disagree with that.. If the lighter equipment really is good enough for your needs, or perhaps more correctly expressed, your 'wants', then the main issue would be the expense of the new system.
However, in order to determine if the system really is good enough for your wants and your style of shooting, one should be aware of the options, pros and cons, and ramifications of each system one is comparing..
Reading Kevins article again, I get the impression he is carrying 4 lenses with the E-M1, a 7-14, 12-40, 45mm macro, and 100-300. That effectively takes him, in full-frame terms, from 14mm to 600mm, but with a fairly significant gap between 45mm and 100mm (or between 90mm and 200mm in full-frame terms).
For my style of shooting I would find such a gap in focal lengths frustrating, particularly if I'm limited by a 16mp sensor. Such a gap, between 90mm and 200mm, when using a D800E is less frustrating. With the D800E in DX mode the 90mm becomes 135mm with a 16mp file size, and one can use all the 'effective' focal lengths between 90mm and 135mm at resolutions greater than 16mp.
Having more pixels than you think you need is no disadvantage nowadays because memory card storage is so huge. What many people don't seem to realize is that those 'apparently' unneeded and unwanted extra pixels can serve a valuable purpose by effectively extending the reach of whatever lens you have on your high-megapixel camera.
If 16mp is your standard, then a D800E (or D810) would be terrific. Every lens you buy has extended qualities. Every prime lens becomes 'effectively' a short-range zoom, and every zoom lens you buy has it's range extended by 50%.
A 50mm prime becomes a 50-75mm zoom with a constant apperture, and a 70-300mm zoom becomes a 70-450mm zoom, in relation to your 16mp requirement.
The D800E with Tamron 150-600 zoom, which Kevin equated in his article with his E-M1 with 100-300 zoom (equivalent to FF 200-600), is really a 150-900mm zoom in E-M1 terms. Wow! To get that 'effective' range with a 4/3rds camera, you would need to use a 75-450mm zoom, not a 100-300 as Kevin implies.
I hope this is all clear now, for those of you who may be mathematically challenged. ;)
-
Rhetorical questions:
What's so difficult to grasp about the concept of different camera/lens systems for different purposes?
Why do some of us perceive gear preferences held & expressed by others as existential threats?
Why do we keep having essentially this same fruitless "discussion" repeatedly?
-Dave-
Amen! A voice of reason...
-
Of course Ray is correct in a nit-picking way; if one is satisfied with the 16MP detail given by en EM1 with a 300mm lens, you can get the same pixels on the subject with a 16MP "DX" crop from the 36MP 36x24mm sensor of the Nikon D800 or D810. Which leave us with a couple of issues:
- the lenses needed is something like the Nikon 80-400mm, and that plus a D80 is still considerably bulkier that the EM1 with Panasonic 100-300 (or in my case, the even smaller combo of EM5 with the Olympus 75-300).
- the OVF image of that 16MP crop is AFAIK far smaller than when the EVF of the EM1 gives (that 16MP crop occupies only 4/9 of the total OVF image area)
- avoiding that small OVF crop image by composing on the rear-screen LCD is not a pleasant way to compose super-telephoto images. And yes, in my experience it is quite feasible to compose hand-held at 300mm in 4/3" forms: modern IS is a wonderful thing for us telephoto fans.
-
Of course Ray is correct in a nit-picking way; if one is satisfied with the 16MP detail given by en EM1 with a 300mm lens...
What! You think the difference between an effective 600mm focal length and an effective 900mm focal length is 'nitpicking', or the difference between an effective 70mm focal length and a 200mm focal length (comparing a 100-300 on the E-M1 with a 70-300 on the D800E) is nitpicking? Are you serious? ;D
Which leave us with a couple of issues:
- the lenses needed is something like the Nikon 80-400mm, and that plus a D800 is still considerably bulkier that the EM1 with Panasonic 100-300.
Of course it is, but a 100-300 on the E-M1 is clearly not equivalent to an 80-400 on the D800 across the whole range. The equivalent lens for the E-M1 would be a 40-300 zoom. If such a lens existed for the 4/3rds format, it would certainly be lighter than the Nikkor 80-400 (assuming an aperture range of around F4.5-5.6) and therefore any comparison would be fair and reasonable, like comparing apples with apples.
Those in favour of the lighter E-M1 with 40-300 zoom could claim that being limited to a 16mp file across the full range is no disadvantage because 16mp is sufficient for their purposes in all circumstances. Those who favoured the significantly heavier Nikon system would point out that the advantages of a significantly more detailed file across the greater part of the range, ie. 40-200 in E-M1 terms, and the significantly greater DR and SNR flowing on from that greater file size, justify that extra weight.
Whatever system one prefers for a particular set of circumstances, is a personal choice. There's neithr right nor wrong if a choice is made with full awareness of the facts.
By the way, when I mentioned before that at base ISO the D800E pixel has a whole stop better DR than the E-M1 pixel, and almost 2 stops better SNR at 18% grey, such differences are of course more significant for the images at wider angles which employ the full frame of the D800E. Such 36mp images downsampled to 16mp have about 1 & 2/3rds of a stop better DR and 9.6dB better SNR at 18% grey, at base ISO. That's a whole 3 stops better SNR. Do you call that nitpicking? ;D
At high-than-base ISO the differences are not so great, but SNR is still 6dB better (or 2 stops better) all the way to ISO 12,800. What competent photographer would give a stuff about a mere 2 stops advantage regarding smoother mid-tones, combined with 2/3rds of a stop better DR at high ISO? ;)
the OVF image of that 16MP crop is AFAIK far smaller than when the EVF of the EM1 gives (that 16MP crop occupies only 4/9 of the total OVF image area)
- avoiding that small OVF crop image by composing on the rear-screen LCD is not a pleasant way to compose super-telephoto images.
That's a fair point and something that should be considered. Let no-one think I'm being biased here. ;)
I imagine that the image through the EVF of the E-M1 at 300mm would appear larger and more detailed than the image through the OVF of the D800E, through the lens at 400mm. That's an advantage. Just how significant this advantage would be, I simply don't know. However, I do know from experience that I prefer to look through an OVF than an EVF.
Whatever the advantages of the larger image as seen through the E-M1 viewfinder at 300mm, such advantages should at least partially be offset by the time saved in not having to precisely compose and frame the shot when using the D800E at 400mm, when one has the intention of getting the 600mm effect. One has the option of using the D800E in DX mode, which results in a DX frame outlined in the viewfinder, or one can continue to shoot in full-frame mode which offers the option of cropping later during post-processing. This is my preferred option, since I frequently change my mind about issues of cropping, sometimes years later. Also, sometimes when I'm in a hurry to capture the moment, I make mistakes in precise framing, accidentally cutting off someone's foot or ear, for example.
The available choice of lenses in any camera system is also an important consideration. I consider having to frequently change lenses a pain and an inconvenience which sometimes cause me to miss the shot. I notice that the range of zoom lenses available for the micro 4/3rds system is excellent. There should be no trouble covering the range from 14mm to 600mm (full-frame equivalent) with just 3 zooms. This is definitely an advantage for those who are more concerned about weight and bulk than resolution, DR and SNR.
-
That's a fair point and something that should be considered. Let no-one think I'm being biased here. ;)
I imagine that the image through the EVF of the E-M1 at 300mm would appear larger and more detailed than the image through the OVF of the D800E, through the lens at 400mm. That's an advantage. Just how significant this advantage would be, I simply don't know.
I can't help noting the irony here: thousands of times over the years people have mentioned smaller viewfinder image size as a significant disadvantage of smaller SLR formats, often disparaging the "tunnel vision" VF images of those smaller format cameras ... and now suddenly Ray wonders "Just how significant this advantage would be, I simply don't know." (Not that I am accusing you of ever making that particular criticism of smaller formats, Ray.)
Maybe this helps:
- The D800 VF magnification is 0.7x (at 50mm); at the low end amongst 36x24mm DSLRs, and smaller than any DX format DSLR I know of. (For comparison, the entry level Nikon D3300 is 0.85x.) Its image of the DX crop is thus of a size comparable to 0.47x in 36x24mm format, smaller than any DX format SLR, and about matching the smallest OVF image size of any Four Thirds DSLR (The E-500, at 0.9x, or "0.45x, FF equivalent").
- The OM-D E-M1 VF magnification is 1.48x (again at 50mm), for an image size comparable to 0.74x in 36x24m format. That's right, somewhat bigger than even the full D800 VF image (or the OVF image of any AF DSLR from Nikon, AFAIK) and vastly bigger than the D800's DX crop mode image, which occupies only about 44% of the VF image area.
The VF image size size ratio is in fact larger than the 400mm vs 600mm difference that Ray is complaining about in Kevin Raber's article.
-
I can't help noting the irony here: thousands of times over the years people have mentioned smaller viewfinder image size as a significant disadvantage of smaller SLR formats, often disparaging the "tunnel vision" VF images of those smaller format cameras ... and now suddenly Ray wonders "Just how significant this advantage would be, I simply don't know." (Not that I am accusing you of ever making that particular criticism of smaller formats, Ray.)
Maybe this helps:
- The D800 VF magnification is 0.7x (at 50mm); at the low end amongst 36x24mm DSLRs, and smaller than any DX format DSLR I know of. (For comparison, the entry level Nikon D3300 is 0.85x.) Its image of the DX crop is thus of a size comparable to 0.47x in 36x24mm format, smaller than any DX format SLR, and about matching the smallest OVF image size of any Four Thirds DSLR (The E-500, at 0.9x, or "0.45x, FF equivalent").
- The OM-D E-M1 VF magnification is 1.48x (again at 50mm), for an image size comparable to 0.74x in 36x24m format. That's right, somewhat bigger than even the full D800 VF image (or the OVF image of any AF DSLR from Nikon, AFAIK) and vastly bigger than the D800's DX crop mode image, which occupies only about 44% of the VF image area.
The VF image size size ratio is in fact larger than the 400mm vs 600mm difference that Ray is complaining about in Kevin Raber's article.
BJL,
Maybe those thousands of comments you refer to are from people with eyesight problems, or from people who prefer to manually focus. I rarely use manual focus. When I do, it's usually with camera on tripod, using LiveView.
I usually photograph subjects which I first see with the naked eye. When I raise the camera to my eye, what I see through the viewfinder, even with the 0.74x magnification of the D800E, is often larger and more detailed than what I saw before raising the camera to my eye. In fact, at all focal lengths above 70mm, the image through the D800E viewfinder is enlarged, in proportion to the focal length, to a greater degree than what the naked eye sees.
As I've mentioned before in other discussions, I use my cameras in manual mode, regarding shutter speed and aperture selection, but in autofocus mode for focusing. Autofocusing is a tremendously useful feature of the modern camera.
I use a single focusing square on my D800E, which I move to whatever part of the composition I wish to be in precise focus. If I wish to focus on something close to the edge or corner of the frame, which is outside of the range of positions that the focusing square can be moved to, I swing the camera just a little bit so the focusing square precisely covers that part of the scene I want to be in focus. I then press the AF-ON button which locks the focus on that part of the scene, allowing me to recompose the shot, and/or swing the camera in another direction entirely, so that the focusing square might cover a cloud in the sky, for example, if I want to expose for the sky. I then adjust the shutter speed with thumb until the exposure indicator at the bottom of the viewfinder looks right, half-depress the shutter button which locks exposure for the sky, then recompose the shot a second time.
If one uses the D800E in DX mode, or with the intention of cropping the image later to approximately DX size, it's true that the relevant composition in the OVF will be smaller than it would be when using the same lens on a DX camera, and again that could be a disadvantage for those with poor eyesight or for those who like to manual focus.
However, there can also be an advantage to this situation of a smaller image enclosed within a wider view. One can see events taking place outside of the DX frame, and can therefore better anticipate action. I'm sure Henri Cartier Bresson would have agreed. ;D
And of course, provided one is using a lens longer than 70mm, which one very likely would be when not using a wide-angle zoom, the detail within the smaller DX frame, within the D800E viewfinder, would still be larger than what the naked eye sees.
For me, this issue of magnification is not a problem. Okay?
-
Are we through yet? I have pictures to take.
Kevin
-
Are we through yet? I have pictures to take.
Kevin
Go ahead, Kevin. Take your pictures. Don't let me stop you. This is not compulsory reading, is it? ;)
-
One thing I mis in this discussion is the WAF factor. For mortals like me that work 50h a week to keep the business running that's an important factor too.My wife really accepts my hobby, even the costs, but she refuses to carry 'the bag with FF goodies'. This sadly stopped me from bringing the gear on family hikes to beautiful french alps, scottish views and dutch beach sunsets.
When I proposed to get the EM-1 for our trip to norway next year she was delighted.
-
One thing I mis in this discussion is the WAF factor. For mortals like me that work 50h a week to keep the business running that's an important factor too.My wife really accepts my hobby, even the costs, but she refuses to carry 'the bag with FF goodies'. This sadly stopped me from bringing the gear on family hikes to beautiful french alps, scottish views and dutch beach sunsets.
When I proposed to get the EM-1 for our trip to norway next year she was delighted.
I fully understand this, I have to go through the same limitations, so to speak. Therefore, for family trips and more relaxed, less ambitious shooting, I am getting a Sony RX10.
I am keeping my EM1s for serious landscape and portrait shooting, with the Oly 12mm lens and Voigtlander 42.5 lens. I hope to get the Voigtlander 10.5mm lens in 2015.