Sony NEX3 and NEX5 EVIL cameras with new E-mount

ethics_gradient said:
Is there much of a point, though? The lenses they're making in E-mount almost certainly don't have that big of an image circle, so why bother with backward compatibility? Given how much Sony loves introducing proprietary standards, I'd think they'd jump at the chance to create a third, incompatible lens mount for a future full-frame EVIL camera.
Click to expand...

It's not about backwards compatibility, it's about production costs. When FF sensors become dirt cheap, Sony would be able to roll out a FF MILC with almost zero R&D cost because they already have the mount in place. The new lenses would be FF E-mount and Sony would make money from them because shooters would have to buy them if they wanted AF (older Minolta/Sony FF lenses could be used too, but don't provide AF).

It doesn't make financial sense to have 2 MILC mounts, one for APS-C and the other for FF; having just one mount for both sensor sizes makes the cameras cheaper to produce because you use the same machine for both.

.
 
Miserere said:
It's not about backwards compatibility, it's about production costs. When FF sensors become dirt cheap, Sony would be able to roll out a FF MILC with almost zero R&D cost because they already have the mount in place..
Click to expand...

Also, I just noticed that the original Oly 4/3 mount is 44 mm in diameter, which is large enough for a FF sensor. Maybe they were thinking the same thing about forward compatibility?

Sorta lame, IMHO. The 4/3 people should have grabbed the bull by the horns when they made their half-sized sensor. The lens mount should be half-sized, the lenses should be half-sized, the cameras should be half-sized, everything should be half-sized! What's the benefit of a miniature sensor, if it still has to be surrounded by a full-sized camera? None!

Just imagine if Nikon had the same idea in 1959 when the released the Nikon F. They would have been planning for the day when people would want to put 6x6 film in their camera, so the lens mount would have been 85mm in diameter! Luckily, they didn't prematurely optimize the F design, and the result was a historical camera.
 
antiquark said:
IMHO. The 4/3 people should have grabbed the bull by the horns when they made their half-sized sensor. The lens mount should be half-sized, the lenses should be half-sized, the cameras should be half-sized, everything should be half-sized! What's the benefit of a miniature sensor, if it still has to be surrounded by a full-sized camera? None!
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't think the 4/3 mount reached its potential until micro-4/3...when they had to essentially make a new mount for the "old" sensor. Olympus digital cameras never interested me until micro-4/3. But they better be careful because the Panny G1 is about the same size as the Sammy NX10, but the NX10 has a larger sensor and similar price tag, so the advantage to the Panny isn't immediately clear.

Panasonic have been smart to strengthen their cameras' video capabilities as I suspect in a few years (when every brand has their own APS-C MILC) it'll be the superior video on the Pannies that keeps them alive. But where does that leave Olympus...?

.
 
One of the problems Leica lenses have on FF sensorsis that the rear elements have to be small enough to fit the M mount + respect the short flange<>sensor distance and they also have to cover the sensor in an optimal way. Making a mount as wide as possible allows other optical designs with wider rear elements and an even shorter flange<>focus distance. A wide mount like the Nex has will also give a better structural support for either the camera or the lens when adapters are used DSLR lenses. Esthetically it looks nicer too in that combination. There's an adapter with a tripod mount BTW. I have a strong suspicion that Sony didn't oversee the value of lens adapters to give this mount its place in the market (fast) in contrast with Samsung's design.
If that 18mm turns out to be 17,526mm of the C-mount then I am even more certain that they made that decision at an early stage.

Ernst Dinkla
 
Ahhh... glad this thread bounced back up... To each his own, no disrespect to owners of 4/3'rds cameras... etc., etc., etc... However, perusing the web this week I read an article of a well-known photography site many are probably familiar with, Dante Stella, who echos my exact sentiments regarding the Oly 4/3 that I checked out in the camera store... Some excerpts, with my comments in []

Olympus E-P1: (Stylus) Epic Fail?

Let's start with one prefatory statement: there is nothing wrong with the Micro Four-Thirds sensor in the camera or the results in image files. By every account, they are fantastic. It's everything else that is... wrong. [Agree, however there are tradeoffs in high ISO performace compared to APS-C, and you have less "play" in DoF]

The E-P1 also represents an excellent example of why it is better to spend 10 minutes with a camera in a brick-and-mortar store than to simply pre-order one. [My experience, exactly... Held one in the camera store, didn't think the sized differential between this camera and a compact DSLR mattered all that much, especially factoring in the higher cost, and tradeoffs resulting from the smaller sensor]

Maybe, as currently configured, this is the camera for you. It wasn't for me, and this is why.

1. Unjustifiable size and weight. Make no mistake - this is a large, heavy camera. [Yes, I was surprised by the cameras size and weight...]

When you need to carry a "compact" camera in a bag and not a pocket, it's probably time to start looking at cheaper and more versatile DX-sensor SLR cameras. [Exactly! That's the point I've been trying to make all along, and why I went with a less expensive, more versatile compact DSLR...]

2. Absurd "tourist mode" operation. The E-P1 has no optical finder. And it has no EVF. So there is no looking through the camera at the subject. Instead, you have to rely on looking at an image on a screen at arms' length - just like on a $150 point-and-shoot digital. First, this is an unnatural method of operation that has no place on an $800 camera body. [Bingo!!! Spot on. Agree...]

"Price. In an era (and economy) where you could buy a used Leica M8 for $2,500 or an Epson RD-1 for $1,500, why would you ever bother spending about $1,000 to use an E-P1 with a bunch of rangefinder lenses that will underperform on a quarter-frame sensor?"
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/e-p1.html

Very good and detailed analysis and criticism and good read if you're considering one of these cameras... Again, not posting to PO 4/3'rds owners but this guy reiterates everything I've said about the 4/3rds (and then some) - especially the Olys.
 
Last edited:
NickTrop said:
Olympus E-P1: (Stylus) Epic Fail?
Click to expand...

Yawn. The E-PL1 is where the action is at now. It is smaller, lighter, better quality, lower price, has a (by all accounts fantastic) EVF, and is a lot less expensive than the E-P1 was.

Oh, one more thing: it has substantially *better* IQ than the Nikon D3000, according to DPReview...

The higher resolution and better JPEG engine of the E-PL1 puts the baby Nikon to shame - with the Olympus trumping the DSLR in every respect. The Nikon D3000 isn't here because it offers class-leading image quality but because its feature set is most closely comparable to the E-PL1, even so the difference is dramatic.
Click to expand...
 
NickTrop said:
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/e-p1.html
Click to expand...

Good article. While reading the it, I had the realization that the EP1 isn't as good as the original pen! They're the same size, but the PenF has a mirror to provide amazing "through the lens" viewing (wow, what a feature!), and also the PenF has a larger sensor: half a 35mm frame is equivalent to APS-C!

Oly and Pana dropped the ball with 4/3 and u4/3... a smaller sensor should mean a smaller, cheaper camera.

http://www.letsgodigital.org/printerfriendly.php?id=22389&lang=de

olympus-pen-ep1.jpg
 
antiquark said:
Good article. While reading the it, I had the realization that the EP1 isn't as good as the original pen!
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

They're the same size, but the PenF has a mirror to provide amazing "through the lens" viewing (wow, what a feature!), and also the PenF has a larger sensor: half a 35mm frame is equivalent to APS-C!
Click to expand...

The digital Pens have TTL viewing that shows you what the *sensor* sees, not an approximation thereof.

Oly and Pana dropped the ball with 4/3 and u4/3... a smaller sensor should mean a smaller, cheaper camera.
Click to expand...

That is exactly why a Leica costs less than a Holga, and a mint PenF costs less than a Diana!
 
NickTrop said:
Ahhh... glad this thread bounced back up... To each his own, no disrespect to owners of 4/3'rds cameras... etc., etc., etc... However, perusing the web this week I read an article of a well-known photography site many are probably familiar with, Dante Stella, who echos my exact sentiments regarding the Oly 4/3 that I checked out in the camera store... Some excerpts, with my comments in []

Olympus E-P1: (Stylus) Epic Fail?

Let's start with one prefatory statement: there is nothing wrong with the Micro Four-Thirds sensor in the camera or the results in image files. By every account, they are fantastic. It's everything else that is... wrong. [Agree, however there are tradeoffs in high ISO performace compared to APS-C, and you have less "play" in DoF]

The E-P1 also represents an excellent example of why it is better to spend 10 minutes with a camera in a brick-and-mortar store than to simply pre-order one. [My experience, exactly... Held one in the camera store, didn't think the sized differential between this camera and a compact DSLR mattered all that much, especially factoring in the higher cost, and tradeoffs resulting from the smaller sensor]

Maybe, as currently configured, this is the camera for you. It wasn't for me, and this is why.

1. Unjustifiable size and weight. Make no mistake - this is a large, heavy camera. [Yes, I was surprised by the cameras size and weight...]

When you need to carry a "compact" camera in a bag and not a pocket, it's probably time to start looking at cheaper and more versatile DX-sensor SLR cameras. [Exactly! That's the point I've been trying to make all along, and why I went with a less expensive, more versatile compact DSLR...]

2. Absurd "tourist mode" operation. The E-P1 has no optical finder. And it has no EVF. So there is no looking through the camera at the subject. Instead, you have to rely on looking at an image on a screen at arms' length - just like on a $150 point-and-shoot digital. First, this is an unnatural method of operation that has no place on an $800 camera body. [Bingo!!! Spot on. Agree...]

"Price. In an era (and economy) where you could buy a used Leica M8 for $2,500 or an Epson RD-1 for $1,500, why would you ever bother spending about $1,000 to use an E-P1 with a bunch of rangefinder lenses that will underperform on a quarter-frame sensor?"
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/e-p1.html

Very good and detailed analysis and criticism and good read if you're considering one of these cameras... Again, not posting to PO 4/3'rds owners but this guy reiterates everything I've said about the 4/3rds (and then some) - especially the Olys.
Click to expand...

You've merely tried one in a store. You're opinion is valid for you, but hardly the final word on m4/3rds itself. Out of all the people I know that have spent the money on m4/3rds cameras and actually used them, I don't know any that are unsatisfied. Add to that you compared the image quality of m4/3 with an old canon point and shoot and a fujifilm f30 line, and that shows your lack of experience with the cameras. It's all good and well to theorize about every little thing you can think of from your computer chair, real practical experience holds significantly more weight.

And you keep going on about size - saying that the e-p1 isn't any useably smaller than a d5000. Just look at this picture:

EP1-vs-D5000.jpg


If you don't think that's a practical difference in size you're either blind or very very anti-m4/3rds.

*And I just want to add for the 2nd or 3rd time, the ELP1 and EP2 both have attachable electronic viewfinders which are LARGER than the one in lower end digital SLRs like the d5000
 
Last edited:
fdigital said:
And you keep going on about size - saying that the e-p1 isn't any useably smaller than a d5000. Just look at this picture:

EP1-vs-D5000.jpg


.
Click to expand...

I think was NickTrop was trying to say is, once you can no longer fit a camera in your pocket, you have to use a bag. Once you're using a bag, a small bag has no real advantage over a big bag. You still have to carry this thing over your shoulder, keep an eye on it at restaurants, remove it when you buckle your seatbelt, etc.
 
antiquark said:
I think was NickTrop was trying to say is, once you can no longer fit a camera in your pocket, you have to use a bag. Once you're using a bag, a small bag has no real advantage over a big bag. You still have to carry this thing over your shoulder, keep an eye on it at restaurants, remove it when you buckle your seatbelt, etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly, except I don't us a bag - just a wrist strap and a 50...

And that's also the conclusion reached in the article, which essentially says the exact thing I've been saying about these cameras almost to a "T"... so others share my "take" on things. I'm too lazy to post a pic - perhaps I will, of my compact DSLR on a wrist strap. As far as fdigital's pic. First off the D5000 I'm using has a 50mm fixed lens that's 1/2 the size of the kit zoom. So, take that pic and cut the lens size in half. Next add the ridiculous (and pricey) extra of a viewfinder on the hotshoe, which the article points out you can't use if you want to use a flash and the viewfinder at the same time (an absolutely ridiculous limitation) like you can with any DSLR, and now they're both around the same height. The article posts dimensions along with weight of the Oly, other 4/3 and Neither fits in your pocket, the size difference is inconsequential. The article even mentions the D40... Again, I'm not the only one who thinks - and I'll say it, the 4/3rds kinda suck in a lot of ways - esp. the Oly cited in this article, which pretty much rips it to shreds... And this guy knows his stuff. C'mon, this thing doesn't have a viewfinder or a built-in flash - both are accessories you have to pay for. This Oly wasn't designed by engineers, it was designed by their marketing department.

E-P1: 120.5mm X 75mm X 35mm 335g
D5000: 127mm x 104mm x 80mm 560g
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/co...mera-Review-20663/Pentax-K2000-Comparison.htm

D5000 - merely 6.5mm wider, 29mm taller - but that includes a viewfinder and a flash (which you can use at the same time) - the height would be roughly the same if the Oly had its $100 viewfinder accessory attached, and it's 45mm thicker, but that's on the "grip side" (I'm assuming) that makes the camera handle so well. The Nikon is heavier - neither camera would qualify as "light" but neither camera is so heavy that it's a burden to carry (imo). Neither camera is "pocketable"... as I was saying all along both are "medium" sized, and as stated in Stella Dante's article I posted:

When you need to carry a "compact" camera in a bag and not a pocket, it's probably time to start looking at cheaper and more versatile DX-sensor SLR cameras...The E-P1, as currently configured, looks too expensive and inflexible to be an "intermediate" camera (compare the DMC-G1, other Four-Thirds cameras, and things like the Nikon D40x)... and neither functional nor small enough to be a compact for serious photographers.

What can I say? I completely concur. If you want a pocketable digital, your best option (imo) is the 6 megapixel Fuji Finepix F10,11,20,30,and 31 due to their (still) unsurpassed lowlight capabilities due to Fuji's innovative "Super CCD". Like the Oly, you have to shoot "at arms length" with the LCD but it comes with a pretty darned good flash. It has better battery life than the Oly, you can put it in your pocket if that's really what you're after. They're plentiful on the used market for around 1/10th the price of the Oly. They look rather mundane, though... not "cool/retro" at all... just an innocuous little digicam in soccer mom silver...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NickTrop said:
Yes, exactly, except I don't us a bag - just a wrist strap and a 50...

And that's also the conclusion reached in the article, which essentially says the exact thing I've been saying about these cameras almost to a "T"... so others share my "take" on things. I'm too lazy to post a pic - perhaps I will, of my compact DSLR on a wrist strap. As far as fdigital's pic. First off the D5000 I'm using has a 50mm fixed lens that's 1/2 the size of the kit zoom. So, take that pic and cut the lens size in half. Next add the ridiculous (and pricey) extra of a viewfinder on the hotshoe, which the article points out you can't use if you want to use a flash and the viewfinder at the same time (an absolutely ridiculous limitation) like you can with any DSLR, and now they're both around the same height. Neither fits in your pocket, the size difference is inconsequential. The article even mentions the D40... Again, I'm not the only one who thinks - and I'll say it, the 4/3rds suck - esp. the Oly cited in this article, which pretty much rips it to shreds... And this guy knows his s--t. C'mon, this thing doesn't have a viewfinder or a built-in flash. This Oly wasn't designed by engineers, it was designed by their marketing department.
Click to expand...


http://www.flickr.com/photos/armughan/3453866498/

Half the size? No. Maybe a 1cm or 2 shorter. And then you go on about using the flash and the viewfinder at the same time blah blah blah... What's wrong with using the lcd panel in live view with a flash in the hot shoe. The LCD can go brighter than an optical VF in the dark - the only place you'd ever use an on-board/direct flash in... And then you go on about having to buy the viewfinder at a ridiculous price, neglecting to mention the extra cost of your 35mm f1.8 nikkor to make your d5000 1cm shorter than it is with the kit lens. Wanna compare an E-LP1 with panasonic 20mm f1.7 with a d5000/35mm f1.8? The Panasonic has the more useful focal length (40 vs 50), is faster, and is optically probably a better lens. Oh, and it's about 1/4th the size of the nikkor. Add to this the coming olympus prime lenses and the panasonic 14mm f2.8 pancake coming this year, and I could probably put 3-4 high quality tiny and super lightweight pancake primes into the space of one nikkor 35mm f1.8 lens. What happens when you want to put an ultra wide on your d5000? You have a choice of some lenses larger than your camera body itself, and thats about it. The Olympus 9-18mm is only 60% the size of the Nikon kit lens.

You want to talk about stupid designs? Why did nikon only put their basic CAM focusing setup in the d5000? It just means that you can't even use most of the functionality that a modern lens affords you, with most of nikons prime lenses. Want to use that sweet 18mm f2.8 on your d5000? Oh can't - it's manual focus only and the d5000's viewfinder is too useless to manual focus it by sight reliably. How about the 85mm f1.4? Nope, can't use that either. What about the bottom hinged flippy LCD screen? Can you use that on a tripid? No? What a stupid design flaw. How about the fact that is has no external ISO adjustment button. If there is one button I want on the camera besides the shutter/aperture dials, it's the ISO button. That's a stupid design decision.
Now I like the d5000, because despite these shortcomings I've listed, you can still work around them to use it as a functional and great camera.

No, the e-p1 isn't a compact shorts pocket camera. But it was never designed to be, it's people who keep crooning on about it not being a pocket camera. IT WAS NEVER DESIGNED TO BE. Proof of this is the advertising campaign "Not a compact, not an SLR, it's a PEN"

Using your logic of size, when you go over anything larger than a canon compact with a sensor the size of a flea, you have to use a bag to carry it - therefore my pentax 6x7 is no larger or more of a hassle than the e-p1 to carry, and my 5d is no larger than my e-p1 to carry either. They all fit into the same small bag with one lens - no difference right?

A pen would take up literally near half the room of a d5000 + 35mm in a small bag, and then each extra lens added would take up half the room again. It's a large, measurable difference.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@fdigital... I'll post a picture of the D5000 with the 50 on a wrist strap, setting comfortably in my hand. The compact DSLRs are bigger... I'm not arguing they're not. But unless I'm shooting a point-n-shoot, that has the advantage of being truly pocketable, I don't want a sensor any smaller than APS-C - not by a hair. Also, your pic is a bit misleading. You have a prime lens on the Oly, the Nikon has a zoom. Put the zoom on the Oly and have it fully zoomed out... then compare. Again, I concur with this article. It expresses my thinking and my experience exactly:

"When you need to carry a "compact" camera in a bag and not a pocket, it's probably time to start looking at cheaper and more versatile DX-sensor SLR cameras...The E-P1, as currently configured, looks too expensive and inflexible to be an "intermediate" camera (compare the DMC-G1, other Four-Thirds cameras, and things like the Nikon D40x)... and neither functional nor small enough to be a compact for serious photographers."

That's the conclusion I reached when I checked out both cameras side by side in a camera store... What else can I say? I completely agree with Stella Dante's conclusion based in identical experience - I held the thing in the camera store. I was expecting something smaller based on all the trade offs - smaller sensor, no viewfinder, smaller battery/fewer shots, no built-in flash, and cost... It's smaller but what does that buy me? Absolutely nothing - not a thing. And too many compromises to win the "size race". To your point about the Pen... It's not a "digital Pen". The Pen had a viewfinder. They didn't remove the "slr hump" by taking out the mirrors all together and making you pay the equiv. of $100 bucks for a finder to shoot properly.
 
Last edited:
My daughter has the D40x (hand me down) and it's planted with the 35/1.8 AFS lens, though we have a 1/2 dozen MF lenses, and an 18-70 slow AFS, and even slower 70-300 Sigma AFS lens for it. It's definitely bigger than a 4/3 camera, maybe 2x bigger, but 35 on 1.6x crop is nice, still able to do shoulder and face portraits without cropping or distortion.

The 4/3 or u4/3 folks were always touting the promise of smaller lenses, but only the 17 Oly, and 20 Pana seem to have materialized.

You can fit other lenses on it, but then you have a 2x crop, and the M and LTM wides don't do so well from what I've seen.

If the 4/3 sensor fits your needs, then I think the area where it would shine in size benefit would be on the long end 35mm effective 200mm + where those lenses get huge on all dslrs. Might be a great setup for a safari, or for bird photography.

Several folks here were very pleased with 4/3rds sensors, zoom lenses, crop, and use with M lenses, until they tried RD1s and M8s, now they don't talk about 4/3 much...interesting...

4/3 reminds me of APS film in the mid '90s. A lot of folks thought it was the future and would kill 35mm film once the right films and gear was all made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom