Camera of the year

[barryfitzgerald]

Care to back it up with something else other than words?

Care to back it up with something else other than words?

I shouldn't have to, we should all have a good grasp of the effects of focal length and perspective compression.
http://jcorbinphotography.blogspot.ie/2011/07/focal-length-can-it-compressexpand-your.html

You can work out the effects of focal length or the equivalent crop by looking at that.

It's worth pointing out this applies to other cameras too, take the Sony RX10 with it's 24-200mm f2.8 (equivalent lens)
The lens is an 8.8-73.3mm one, it actually has slightly less DOF at the 200mm equivalent than a 1.5x crop camera and an 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 lens (it's pretty close though on paper)

Bottom line is you're shooting at 73mm on the Sony and 135mm on the other lens (both equivalent roughly to 200mm field of view) It doesn't matter how you twist things, the 73mm lens is not going to compress the background as much as the 135mm one. So even though the Sony bridge model on paper has slightly better DOF control at the tele end, it has less perspective compression, you're quite likely to prefer the image from the 135mm lens for portrait shots. If you add a full frame lens at 200mm f5.6 the difference is even more obvious.

It's also the reason other premium compacts don't give the same look v even crop sensor cameras, they're shooting at a tele equivalent with a wide angle lens, which looks quite different to an actual shorter focal length telephoto lens, even with the extra speed the compression with be entirely different.

It might not matter much to some, might not be a concern for some shooters but it is something often overlooked by many review sites, when they try to compare "bokeh" shots, they mostly entirely overlook the effects of focal length and compression.

[hjulenissen]

The other side of having a set of f/0.95 lenses is that they're f/0.95! Sheer photon-gathering ability in low light is nice to have, particularly combined with Olympus' sensor-based stabilization. On m43 you get usable DOF along with the lens speed, especially with the Voigt 17.5mm. This offsets the somewhat noisy performance of m43 sensors at high ISOs.

A) FF camera    @ 35mm    f/1.9  1/100s ISO 400
B) m43 camera @ 17.5mm f/0.95 1/100s ISO 100

Assume that both sensors are state-of-the art (or perfect, or equal tech). Take an image of the same scene, placing each camera on the same stand/position. Print both at 13"x19" and hang them on your wall side-by-side.

Which image has the most DOF and the most pleasing AOV and perspective? Which sensor receives the most photons? Which is most noisy?

-h

[BJL]

I shouldn't have to, we should all have a good grasp of the effects of focal length and perspective compression.
http://jcorbinphotography.blogspot.ie/2011/07/focal-length-can-it-compressexpand-your.html

You can work out the effects of focal length or the equivalent crop by looking at that.

Barry,
    thanks for that link: it makes Slobodan's point and mine well. Perhaps you should reread its discussion of "camera-to-subect-distance": as explained there, the "compression" effect comes from increasing the distance from the foreground subject, and then keeping the image of that subject the same size on the final image, which in those examples is done by increasing the focal length.  This changes the ratio between the apparent sizes of foreground and background images, making the background relatively larger, which makes the brain think that it is closer. This effect is achieved equally in any format, and nothing at that site indicates otherwise.

In fact, here is an easy way to do the same thing: photograph the same subject with the same camera and the same focal length from different distances, and the crop so that the foreground subject occupies the same portion in each of the final images. See what happens to the background?  (You might also be surprised how the OOF effects in the background compare if the same f-stop is used for both images.)

[barryfitzgerald]

Barry,
    thanks for that link: it makes Slobodan's point and mine well. Perhaps you should reread its discussion of "camera-to-subect-distance": as explained there, the "compression" effect comes from increasing the distance from the foreground subject, and then keeping the image of that subject the same size on the final image, which in those examples is done by increasing the focal length.  This changes the ratio between the apparent sizes of foreground and background images, making the background relatively larger, which makes the brain think that it is closer. This effect is achieved equally in any format, and nothing at that site indicates otherwise.

In fact, here is an easy way to do the same thing: photograph the same subject with the same camera and the same focal length from different distances, and the crop so that the foreground subject occupies the same portion in each of the final images. See what happens to the background?  (You might also be surprised how the OOF effects in the background compare if the same f-stop is used for both images.)

We've already been down this road many times..
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml

It's quite obvious to me that you would for a portrait shot just one example, say a head or head and shoulders shot, maintain the subject size. It's also a common mistake people make to suggest focal length has no part in the DOF calculation (it does, part of the formula, but it's a variable just as subject to distance is)

The only addition to make the article above is the distribution of DOF (ie portion in front and behind the focus point) does vary depending on focal length, even if the actual DOF is the same or almost the same. ie wide angle lenses have a larger area behind the focal point in focus, where as telephoto lenses have a more even distribution.

Focal length clearly does influence camera to subject difference. Put a 100mm lens on a FF camera for a head shot portrait, you'll have to move back further with an APS-C one (thus increasing the DOF and reducing the perspective effects) and with a micro 4/3 body you'll be even further back (again more DOF less magnification etc etc)

I'm not really sure how will manage to get over these differences from a practical perspective 

It is correct that linear perspective changes are down to distance to subject changes, but you're a bit mixed up here. If you stay in the same position and take a photo from 3 different focal lengths, the perspective does not change because the distance has not changed, and you can if you want crop the images and they will be the same perspective wise.

[HSway]

The camera has also somewhat 'different' feel in hands.
If I were to find an example of cameras’ execution (i.e. evolution) of which advancements are analogical say to those in the sensor technology, it would be difficult to think of a better example in around £2500 – 3000.

[BJL]

We've already been down this road many times..
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml

What has DOF got to do with your claim about "compression" being less possible with a smaller format?  To repeat again what your link illustrates, compression is about changing the relative sizes of foreground and background subjects by changing camera position.

As to my aside about background OOF effects, I was alluding to the fact that the OOF effects on subject for beyond the subject are not directly related to the DOF. In fact, by changing choice of camera position, focal length and aperture, you can increase the DOF on the subject while increasing the blurring of distant background objects!  I thought I would mention this since so many people use "DOF" when referring to the extent of blurring of background objects for behind the plane of focus.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Barry, is being long and convoluted your way of saying you were wrong?

[BJL]

Focal length clearly does influence camera to subject difference. Put a 100mm lens on a FF camera for a head shot portrait, you'll have to move back further with an APS-C one (thus increasing the DOF and reducing the perspective effects) and with a micro 4/3 body you'll be even further back (again more DOF less magnification etc etc)

I'm not really sure how will manage to get over these differences from a practical perspective  

As you surely know, one adjusts for differences in format by adjusting focal length choice to cover the same FOV: if 100mm in 35mm format, then 60-70mm in APS-C formats and about 50mm in 4/3" format.

It is correct that linear perspective changes are down to distance to subject changes, but you're a bit mixed up here. If you stay in the same position and take a photo from 3 different focal lengths, the perspective does not change because the distance has not changed, and you can if you want crop the images and they will be the same perspective wise.

On that we have always agreed: try reading the subject line of my message which was all about changing position to change the compression effect! What has "no change if you shoot from the same position" got to do with your previous claim of a difference in compression effect ability based on format size?

[barryfitzgerald]

As you surely know, one adjusts for differences in format by using lenses that cover the same FOV: if 100mm in 35mm format, then 60-70mm in APS-C formats and about 50mm in 4/3" format.
On that we have always agreed: try reading the subject line of my message which was all about changing position to change the compression effect! What has "no change if you shoot from the same position" got to do with your previous claim of a difference in compression effect ability based on format size?

What's so hard to grasp that DOF focal length and subject to distance are variables? The entire DOF calculation is is based on a number of variables and equations which influence each other.

Regarding perspective and compression we've the same lens, and yes it will have the same DOF on all the bodies, but you cannot maintain the same subject distance for obvious reasons. Thus APS-C and micro 4/3 have a larger DOF and less compression. Now you can argue you can halved the focal length and get the same effect. But you have to adjust the lens speed to compensate.

Problem is let's take a 50mm f1.4 lens on full frame. You have your 25mm micro 4/3 lens, you would need a lens faster than f0.7 to achieve this effect. Such a lens is not made, even the Nokton 25mm f/0.95 cannot match it. And that's before we've looked at the price some $1000 odd v the significantly cheaper FF lens. Suddenly the cost advantages slip away quickly with micro 4/3, as you need over 2 stops to match full frame DOF.

Even just to match APS-C lenses like the 35-100mm, and 12-35mm f2.8 would have to be f2.2 not f2.8, and f1.3 to match full frame. The 45mm f1.8 needs a speed boost to f1.2 to be competitive with APS-C. These lenses don't exist, nor will they.

Maybe you take your portraits differently than I do, I compose (regardless of sensor format) either way focal length varies the magnification, which varies your subject to distance which effects perspective.

[fike]

This is my camera of the year.

[Isaac]

Better yet, let's not. This is all about identity, posturing and Look At My Big One nonsense. ... Maybe we need to spend less time defining ourselves with our gear, whatever it is, and more time using it.

But defining ourselves with our gear is so much easier than using it ;-)

[dudu307]

I've attached a pure record shot, taken last night at 8pm to show my friend Kirsten in LA the view outside my house. I'd just finished shoveling snow, and it was -9° C with a bit of wind. I used an E-M1, Voigtländer 17.5/0.95 lens wide open, 1/20th sec. at ISO 1000. Al

OK, I can shoot more or less the same picture with similar DOF and file quality with, say, a Nikon D600 and a 35 mm f2.0 at ISO 4000, but then price and weight of both systems are similar. You've IS and I've AF. Both systems have strong points. But it's not a 35-100 f2.8 vs 70-200 f2.8.

Regards

[bcooter]

Wow,

What is full frame, cause I thought anything that filled the frame was full.

It's funny I buy fast lenses and oh so very rarely ever use them wide open.

Like Michael I enjoy the em series, I use it for commerce and find a lot of pluses.  It's not the costs (though cost is important) it just the character of the file, the handling of the camera and I love the ability to go from a 4:3 drop to 2:3 at a flick of a switch.  Also it's one of the few modern digital cameras I can manually focus and if you love beautifully built cameras it's a beautifully built camera and no I get nothing for that statement, I pay retail.

Speaking of beautiful cameras, last night I messed with a Leica S at the Mayfair studio and even with that beautifully big ovf when I put it next to the little em1 (and boy does the em1 look tiny next to it) I didn't see a drop off in the ability to manually focus or autofocus in low light, though I'll admit the Leica S is really something special.

Like Michael, I love cameras that are made by camera folk, not marketing guys and in a strange way I think Olympus and Leica are somewhat alike in that process.

You know I shot this with an 85mm 1.8 probably stopped down to around F3 or 4 or maybe more.  I never look at F numbers, I look at shutter speed to hold sharpness and just adjust F stop to get the background look I want.



I shot this with a Canon at about 400 iso and at the time had I owned the em-5 or , with a 45 or my contax with a 120 there would have been so little difference nobody would have known.

There's more to a camera than just the numbers.

IMO

BC

[Manoli]

Speaking of beautiful cameras, … I'll admit the Leica S is really something special.

Go on, you know you want to - buy it!

[Telecaster]

"Full frame": formerly used to describe digicams using 135 format sensors, though technically a true full-frame camera would be able to capture entire image circles rather than rectangular crops.

"Full frame": currently used primarily for marketeering and posturing.

BC, I second Manoli...get the Leica S. I wanna live vicariously!   

-Dave-

[Dave Millier]

It seems to me that all mirrorless systems are remarkably overpriced.  Given that a mirrorless camera does away with all the complicated mechanical parts of SLR viewing and focusing, what you have a basically a large sensor compact with a lens mount.  It ought to be cheaper than similarly featured SLRs.   We ought to be able to get mirrorless cameras at every level from budget to pro that offer better value than DSLRs but the opposite is the case.  In every market segment, those complex, hand assembled obsolete DLRs cost less and provide higher specs. For example, name me the mirrorless body currently available that offers a 24MP sensor for under £300 like the D3200 does... Ah, yes, um,er.  Mirrorless manufacturers haven't taken advantage of the cost savings from dumping the mirror to lower the cost of entry for the buyer, they've tried to have their cake and eat it: sell you less for more... a lot more.

I like my XE-1 but it's a lot of money for what you get, I liked my G1 and GF1 and I like my G3 but there is no way I would buy another G series until the price falls by 50%. DSLRs are a bit of a bargain, especially at the budget end.

From my experience, again from Portugal, Olympus is very expensive. Right now, the price of the EM1 is comparable to the price of a EOS 6D (with the Canon rebates tha ended in Dec 31). Lenses have comparable prices too, at least the usual ones. No doubt a EM1 with say, a 17 f1.8 is a fantastic kit for travel and street; but so is the 6D with a 40mm pancake, or 35 f2, or 50 1.4; for similar prices.

I am not taking sides here, just stating that price wise, for the normal shooter, the Canon makes a very strong point. So much so that on Dec 31 I bought a 6D with 50 1.4 lens.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

It seems to me that all mirrorless systems are remarkably overpriced...

When they expend their market share and volume, the price will fall, just as it has for DSLRs. DSLRs are Walmarts of the world, mirrorless more like a boutique.

[Dave Millier]

Wow,

What is full frame, cause I thought anything that filled the frame was full.

When Kodak made digital cameras and digital sensors, I remember a rather tetchy reply on a forum from a product manager of the early 4/3 sensors supplied to Olympus.  Our sensors are full frame he said, not interline like those budget Sony CCDs.

I think he was less irritated by Sony's sensor division success than at the developing slang term of "full frame" (meaning 36x24mm) stomping all over the then "correct" usage for full frame transfer CCD.

[Telecaster]

Some reasoned, non-proselytizing commentary at Mike Johnston's site:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2014/01/olympus-disappearing-thom-responds.html

-Dave-

[BJL]

The entire DOF calculation ...

Barry, I suspect that this reply is futile, but I will try anyway:
I was responding to your comments about compression. Neither your claim about compression nor my rebuttals have anything to do with DOF, or with the desire of some people for portraits with very blurry backgrounds, so your entire post about DOF and portraits is irrelevant to our discussion.


(Aside: I suspect that by now almost every long-time participant in this forum knows that 35mm format achieves roughly the same compositional characteristics of angular field of view, depth of field and shutter speed as 4/3" format with twice the focal length, twice the aperture ratio (and so the same effective aperture diameter or entrance pupil diameter), and thus four times the ISO speed.