Sony NEX3 and NEX5 EVIL cameras with new E-mount

One more linky. Falk Lumo compares Pentax K-x, Nikon D5000, and Nikon D700...

Traditionaly, there is a one stop difference between full frame and APS-C. Temporarily, this sensor (Nikon D5000, Pentax K-x, supposed to be a Sony Exmor sensor) fills the gap (towards a Nikon D700) with respect to dynamic range while the difference remains with respect to high ISO noise.

This means that the D5000/K-x sensor has the same sensitivity to light as usual (as the D700) but has significantly reduced read-out noise.
Click to expand...

It just ain't simple... but the little Sony Sensor-That-Could is running well ahead of the APS-C pack, no question about it. That's consistent with my experiences with Sony's superb interline CCDs in scientific applications. They have offered the best bang-for-buck (but not the highest cost-no-object performance) in scientific imaging for at least a decade.

And the K-x with the 31 Limited -- well, that is just The Hotness. I'd rather have one of those than an M8 and 35 Summicron ASPH.
 
Last edited:
nice post semilog, it matches with my experience that m43 is very close to aps-c to the point of being a nonfactor. i only wish that a few hundred points on these scales made that much of a difference, even on a 5d i manage to take some pretty lousy photos, lol.


semilog said:
You mean square mm, not mm squared.

Four thirds: 13 mm high.
APS-C (Canon): 14.8 mm high (14% taller than 4/3).
APS-C (Nikon): 15.7 mm high (6% taller than Canon; 21% taller than 4/3).

IQ generally scales with the linear dimension of a sensor, not with sensor area. It stands to reason: what we're after is the amount of enlargement (magnification) that you can get from a negative or a digital file. An 8x10 enlargement is an ~8x enlargement of a 24x36 mm negative, and a ~4x enlargement of a 645 negative. All else being equal, a Nikon APS-C file might yield a 4:3 aspect ratio print 20% larger (linear) than a four thirds file, at equivalent IQ.

Don't believe me? Then when was the last time you saw an MTF expressed in cycles per mm^2, rather than cycles per mm ? (Answer: you probably never have, because that's not how it's done!)

Thus, 4/3 and APS-C are basically the same except that APS-C has a wider aspect ratio. If you don't care for the wider aspect ratio (and this is an aesthetic question, not a technical one), then there is effectively no technical advantage to an APS-C sensor. It's the difference between an 8x10 print, and a 9.5x12 print -- at most. To do meaningfully better than 4/3, you have to go full frame or MF. Seriously: you need to be shooting a 5D or an M9 or a D3 or a Pentax D645 or a Phase One.

Other factors -- tripod use, image stabilization, RAW or JPEG processing, and of course lens quality -- will almost always swamp that 15-20% difference. This is why the 4/3 Olympus E-620 was smack dab in the middle of the APS-C cameras, and the m4/3 E-PL1 destroyed the Nikon D3000 in the DP Review comparisons. The sensors are close enough that the difference is, in fact, hair-splitting. It is a near certainty that, with two files stripped of EXIF data and identifying features like aspect ratio, you could not reliably tell the difference -- except, of course, that the Olympus lenses are often (though of course not always) better than the APS-C equivalents.
Click to expand...
 
I've already declared myself the winner of this debate. Any post beyond the one where I declared myself the winner (including this one, ironically) is superfluous. However, I am empathetic to your desire to justify your purchase... it's human nature, and especially acute with camera aficionados, which borders on cult-like loyality. As is the case of any cult - various religious cults, "conservatives" etc... flagrant reality along with logic is ignored in favor of mythology regardless of how ridiculous said cult mythology is. I have posted stats comparing the inferiority of the 4/3 Olys - spec-wise, to the larger APS-C counterparts. (And I acknowledge the inferiority of APS-C regarding IQ compared to FF...) This is especially evident in lowlight capabilities, which is a critical stat if you're looking to 4/3 cameras as your "digital rangefinder". I have also posted a concurrent opinion from a professional photographer and well-known and respected "pundit" of things photographic.

These cameras have the "cool lines" of film RFs but film RFs didn't compromise quality - at all, which I have proved 4/3rds do. These sensors are smaller, hence they can not achieve the IQ specs of larger sensors, and the smaller "film" plane allows for less play with DoF. Film RFs had a "handle-ability" advantage over the earlier, larger, SLRS by virtue of their size. The advantage was negated later in the film world as SLR sizes shrunk to sizes comparable to RFs but there were other advantages of RF cameras that appealed to photographers: A. framing and shooting with a rangefinder vs. a pentaprism; B. quiter operation; C. wide angle lens use; D. higher shutter sync speeds; E. (last but not least) ability to hand hold at slower shutter speeds. These practical advantages kept RFs in business, though they lost most of the market to SLRs. And, like their digital counterparts of today, RFs did not hold such a size advantage over smaller SLRs as to be meaningful, and certainly neither was pocketable (except for the XA line and perhaps Retinas and others with lenses that fully collapse into the body...)

Unlike film RFs, the 4/3rds offer no practical advantage over their compact SLR counter-parts like the D40s or D5000s of the world. Compact SLRs are a bit larger but neither are a burden to carry or handle, have a proper viewfinder so you don't have to shoot at arms length like a $150 point-n-shooter (or use a kluge and pricey viewfinder accessory....), have no built-in flash, and incorporate smaller sensors than the already small APS-C sensor that represents another backwards step away from full frame.

4/3 camera have no real reason to be, represent a terrible value as a photographic tool, survive only due to enthusiasts who want to be seen with a cool looking camera as a fashion accessory, and will soon be a footnote when they go "out of fashion" like Barny Miller ties and beehive hairdos on women. In ten years or so, there will be a revival when these cameras along with their abandoned proprietary mount lenses are found on auction sites for $5.00. As they say in the auto world these cameras are all show and no go.

And, by the way, as I continue to explore my new toy - the D5000, with its combination of articulated screen + quiet shutter mode + high iso capability + fast prime is a revelation for shooting candids of human subjects despite its relatively slow contrast AF in live view. The kids and other camera shy members in my fam literally run away from "Uncle Nick" when he has his camera out. I shot them all night tonight at an event using the articulated screen without their knowledge. The new "convention" (for lack of a better word) is when people are looking at their camera LCD, they're "chimping". Little do they know... The articulated screen along with this camera's excellent quiet shutter mode makes for quite the stealthy shooter - best I've ever used despite not being the smallest camera I've ever used. Contrast this with holding your camera out at arms length - now there's a stealthy way to shoot (rolls eyes...) Had I been using a smaller 4/3 - in addition to the IQ compromises, the kids would be running away as they always do, my sister would be putting her hand in front of her face like she always does - that is, I would not have been able to have have taken 90% of the shots I took tonight.
 
Last edited:
hey, everyone is entitled to be wrong, including you. anyone who compares m43 output to the f30 series, both of which i own, is clearly delusional. and it's interesting how you mock the arms length shooting style, and then in the next breath proceed to trumpet the use of an articulated screen. are you pressing that screen against your face, or perhaps you are extending your arms to use it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nick assumes that the way he balances what parameters are important is the best, the only way. Note that no one here has told Nick that his equipment choices are wrong, yet he persists in futile attempts to "prove" that the choices others have made are wrong.

Why? Because of the Dunning-Kruger effect, that's why.

Unskilled people think that complex things are simple; for example, they might think that the performance of an imaging system, or even a sensor, might be usefully distilled to a single number. Skilled people know that that complex things generally are not simple. Yogi Berra got at the same issue with typical eloquence: "In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is."
 
Last edited:
I can't argue with someone that bases their whole opinion off a website that uses numbers to rank camera sensors, and has barely used the product he so passionately dismisses.
 
Last edited:
antiquark said:
How about this one. Now this is comparing oranges to oranges -- a 50mm 1.4 vs a 50mm-e 1.4. Keep in mind that the e410 is the smallest SLR today, which is sort of pointless when the lens itself is larger than the camera.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/minami/509320258/
509320258_a0911a9c50.jpg
Click to expand...

Yep, and the m8 + 50 1.4 is only $5-7k more expensive than the olympus!

And that original pic was comparing oranges to oranges, they're both zoom lenses of around 28-80mm range.
 
Last edited:
fdigital said:
And that original pic was comparing oranges to oranges, they're both zoom lenses of around 28-80mm range.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but who wants to use a zoom lens? :)

Actually, my main complaint with 4/3 is that a half-sized sensor could have resulted in half sized lenses, cameras, etc. When I first heard about 4/3, I envisioned a Noctilux that was only 3 cm in length. Instead we got a Summilux the size of a coffee mug. Total letdown!
 
fdigital said:
I can't argue with someone that bases their whole opinion off a website that uses numbers to rank camera sensors, and has barely used the product he so passionately dismisses.
Click to expand...

1. Can't argue with a guy who hand-waves impartial quantified data based on rigorous testing from a reputable business that tests cameras and optics for a living and whose survival depends on their accuracy... on account of da numbers don't favor the camera you like...

2. Ever test drive a car and say to yourself "this car blows, who in their right mind would own such a PoS?" - no sale. Did I need to buy said suck-y car to form a valid opinion of it? Or is driving it a few kilometers enough?
 
Last edited:
"Why? Because of the Dunning-Kruger effect, that's why."

Hilarious!

I posted pics of an old online gallery in the past over similar assumptions of my "skills as an amateur photographer" from those who take my criticisms of their gear a bit too personally, which resulted in embarrassingly gushing accolades; the "man love" gave me d-chills. I don't like it. That gallery is no longer online. You're welcome to dig up the thread. I have no desire to seek "thumbs ups" or "get star ratings" - that is, seek approval, from anyone. I could truly care less what anyone thinks of my pics either way. I'm not trying to be "the next HCB" or some undiscovered photographic genius. Over the last decade or so, I mostly like simply taking candids of my family or stuff of interest I see walking about. Natural light, rule of thirds, candids (if possible)... that's it. They're personal, for my eyes only (more or less), so I don't post them. Plus I'm squeamish of posting shots of kids online, and I'm too lazy to scan.

Look at you. I criticized gear you like; you resort to psychobabble. Think about that. "The Dunning-Kruger Effect" LOL... Thanks for the belly laugh.
 
Last edited:
NickTrop said:
1. Can't argue with a guy who hand-waves impartial quantified data based on rigorous testing from a reputable business that tests cameras and optics for a living and whose survival depends on their accuracy... on account of da numbers don't favor the camera you like... ?
Click to expand...

The question is whether you're making a mountain of a molehill. Our practical experience, and the DP Review tests, demonstrate that the quantitative differences that you think are so important don't actually interfere with making good images, except perhaps at the extremes of the ISO range -- but in reality, probably not even there. Even near the limits of sensor performance, the difference between an EP-L1 and a D3000 or a 50D or even a K-x (which, to get briefly on-topic, uses pretty much the same sensor that is in the Sony NEX cameras) is real, but not enormous.

Do I understand the technical aspects of digital imaging? Yes, I do. In my work, I use digital sensors, operating at the limits of their performance, to extract numerical information (mechanical forces in the pN range; distances in the nm range; counting of single fluorescent molecules; examples here and here). If you've ever done imaging work that demanding, please share.

I also use both film and digital sensors to take pictures for fun, and of course to do that I need equipment.

For example: Until this year, Nikon did not sell a 35mm equivalent lens - my favorite FL - that can, on an APS-C sensor, resolve a scene as well as the Olympus 12-60 SWD zoom on a four thirds sensor. An additional advantage of this lens is that it has, at 35mm-e, effectively ZERO geometrical distortion. It also has very effective IS, silent and lightning-fast USM focusing, and it is weather sealed, which is helpful since I like to shoot in the rain and I don't want to trash an expensive lens.

This year, Nikon finally released their 24/1.4. It is a great lens. But it is heavier than the 12-60, it has no IS (it's fast, but that doesn't help if you're trying to hold DOF, which I often am), it has more geometrical distortion than the 12-60 at 35-e, it costs $2200 instead of the $800 that I spent, and it does not allow the precise control over framing that a zoom permits.

I make equipment choices by trying the stuff out and taking actual photographs.

After having tried APS-C gear from Nikon (D80 with 24/2.8) and Pentax, I found their offerings at my favorite FL frustratingly inadequate. I even purchased a Pentax K20D and the little 21mm lens, and played with it for a week. that lens is cute as a button, but it focused slowly and loudly (screw drive), it was soft wide open, and it was not really that good at middle apertures. I sent the Pentax stuff back to B&H. Only then did I purchase the E-620 and 12-60. I did not return that remarkable lens, and I have not been tempted to sell it.

Again: I have not said that your choices are wrong, Nick. But it is deeply arrogant and foolish to assume that other people use the same decision criteria that you do. Smart people can and do make different choices for different reasons. It is sad that that making your own choices is inadequate, and you feel the need to denigrate the equally valid choices made by others.
 
Last edited:
HoodedOne said:
And i thought this topic was about the new Sony Nex camera.
You could've fooled me.
Click to expand...

In a way, it is. A lot of what I've posted is about sensor tech, the (minor) differences between 4/3 and APS-C, and the very good Sony EXMOR sensors used in the Nikon D5000, Pentax K-x, and Sony NEX cameras.
 
Last edited:
"But it is deeply arrogant and foolish to assume that other people use the same decision criteria that you do."

Even when my decision criteria is correct and theres are not?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom