NickTrop
Veteran
Hey, you diagnosed me with "Dunning-Kruger" - what else do you expect?
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Just to be clear, Nick: I have no problem with your equipment choices, which seem sensible for what you want to do. My problem is with your assumption that your view is the only valid view.
I the setting of a forum for discussion, that is obnoxious.
Read your actual posts again, Nick. In many cases they're just rude.
I the setting of a forum for discussion, that is obnoxious.
Read your actual posts again, Nick. In many cases they're just rude.
Last edited by a moderator:
NickTrop
Veteran
I disagree. I think you should reread my posts... Am I really being rude? - Or just being a provocateur? Pathological? - Or engaging in a little mischief centered around "bordering on pathological" camera gear choices (of all things) and the defense, thereof...? Perhaps an ancillary benefit is getting some to do a little homework or see things a little differently at the expense of some minor agitation...
Last edited by a moderator:
jarski
Veteran
fooled me too.
IMO Sony's adapter friendly system seems very promising. am waiting experiences from early adopters.
ethics_gradient
Well-known
Yeah, I can't wait for these things to start showing up in shops. I'm not going to buy one blind over the internet without handling it in person first, but I'm cautiously optimistic. While not ideal, I don't think the on-screen-only controls are going to be a dealbreaker for me; I'd probably leave it on Av and shoot with adapted lenses most of the time anyways.
The idea of an mountable accessory coupled-RF with all the extra registry distance real estate is very intriguing. I've got a Zorki not doing much else that might get sacrificed for... science.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
antiquark
Derek Ross
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
igi
Well-known
The irony over the last flood of posts concerning M4/3 and APS-C DSLR's is that the arguments are double standards to say the least:
APS-C user: APS-C sensors are significantly larger/better performing than 4/3's sensors but APS-C DSLR's are not significantly larger than M4/3's!
M4/3's user: M4/3's are significantly smaller than APS-C DSLR's but 4/3's sensors are not significantly smaller/worse performing than APS-C!
Get over it. M4/3's are significantly smaller than APS-C's and APS-C sensors are significantly larger than 4/3's.
Though for sensor performance, I guess it's too close to tell in terms of day to day use
APS-C user: APS-C sensors are significantly larger/better performing than 4/3's sensors but APS-C DSLR's are not significantly larger than M4/3's!
M4/3's user: M4/3's are significantly smaller than APS-C DSLR's but 4/3's sensors are not significantly smaller/worse performing than APS-C!
Get over it. M4/3's are significantly smaller than APS-C's and APS-C sensors are significantly larger than 4/3's.
Though for sensor performance, I guess it's too close to tell in terms of day to day use
But igi, the Olympus E-P2 is not significantly smaller than the Leica X1...
Matus
Well-known
Having a look at both Samsung NX10 and new Sony (they both use APS-C) one can compare the galleries on dcresource.com and at least to my eye the Sony seems to produce nicer looking result (Samsung seems to have more sharpening and noise suppression).
what is your impression ?
what is your impression ?
jarski
Veteran
many of the complaints are about camera software, that can be "patched" over the time.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I never made any such claim.
My whole point: APS-C and 4/3 cameras (SLR vs. SLR, mirrorless vs. mirrorless) are about the same size, their sensors are about the same size, and their performance is pretty similar, once we account for differences between sensor electronics (where, IMO, Sony is pretty clearly in the lead over Samsung, Canon, and Panasonic).
There *are* major differences between P&S sensors vs. APS-C and 4/3, and between APS-C and 4/3 vs. FF vs. MF.
btgc
Veteran
I just had idea - why sony didn't make one of models little beefier, considering buyers of zoom lenses already have agreed to carry more weight? Slim bodies could be OK with fixed focal length lenses, but zooms on current cameras look strange idea.
antiquark
Derek Ross
Except for those 4/3 outfits that are larger than FF outfits:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/minami/509320258/
Jamie123
Veteran
It has built-in HDR... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Believe it or not but even though I hate HDR pictures I wouldn't mind having this auto-HDR feature in my Canon 5D II. It would just be nice to know how much shadow and highlight detail was actually recorded so I can adjust the exposure accordingly.
Bruin
Noktonian
For me, it's the crop factor that put me off m4/3. I can live high-ISO performance that's a stop worse than APS-C, but going to a 2x crop is too much. Sony isn't going to get everything "right" on their first try at EVIL, but for the near future it's the best (affordable) digital platform for my M-mount lenses. A NEX7 with enthusiast-level controls, IS, and EVF will really put m4/3 on its heels.
I've got 24mm covered with the kit lens, my 28/2 Ultron becomes a 42mm, and my 50/2 M-Hex becomes a 75mm. I could live with that kit just fine. With a wide-angle adapter I can get 18mm from the kit lens, so ultrawide is covered. Telephotos (adapted) are plentiful if I want. If Sony comes out with a fast 30mm I might pick it up just for the AF. And when Zeiss starts making E-mount lenses...
I'm building my system off the lenses because I know I'll change bodies every several years. I'm fairly settled on the focal lengths I want, though.
I've got 24mm covered with the kit lens, my 28/2 Ultron becomes a 42mm, and my 50/2 M-Hex becomes a 75mm. I could live with that kit just fine. With a wide-angle adapter I can get 18mm from the kit lens, so ultrawide is covered. Telephotos (adapted) are plentiful if I want. If Sony comes out with a fast 30mm I might pick it up just for the AF. And when Zeiss starts making E-mount lenses...
I'm building my system off the lenses because I know I'll change bodies every several years. I'm fairly settled on the focal lengths I want, though.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I suspect you'll see a Canon with those properties (perhaps minus the in-body IS) before you see it from Sony.
Sony's marketing people could find a way to lose a one-man rock fight.
Sandiman
Newbie
Just read a review in A P on the Sony NEX-5 and they have given it lower marks than any of the competition.
I know that doesn't mean a lot as although they are supposed to be experts at the end of the day it is all down to individual preferences.
I know that doesn't mean a lot as although they are supposed to be experts
at the end of the day it is all down to individual preferences.
NickTrop
Veteran
Here's a good article on sensor sizes, and how it impacts all aspects of your picture - it includes interactive DoF calculations, focal length multipliers, and diffraction effects.
Here is what it says about sensor cost.
The cost of a digital sensor rises dramatically as its area increases. This means that a sensor with twice the area will cost more than twice as much, so you are effectively paying more per unit "sensor real estate" as you move to larger sizes.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm
I will hereby refer to 4/3 cameras as the "4/3 racket". Here's my belief. Increased competition and a flooded DSLR market leads to shrinking margins on prosumer/enthusiast cameras. Manufactors are seeking ways to improve margins by decreasing the production costs of their products, while increasing price. How to do this?
1. Reduce the cost of production by shrinking what matters most in terms of IQ in a digital camera body, and also costs the most to produce - its sensor. Sensor size effects:
A. Diffraction
B. Noise levels at higher ISO
C. Dynamic Range
D. Lens crop factors
2. And while we're at it, let's get rid of the next most expensive thing - the optical viewfinder, so you have to hold your arm out to frame and replace it with a cheaper to produce LCD (just like a cheap point-n-shoot...). (How is it that the many of the same users who tout, and pay a premium for, the excellent rangefinders in Leica are satisfied with just an LCD?) I can just hear the meetings in Oly's marketing department - In fact, "JB", while we're at it we can sucker these "enthusiasts" to pay even more by charging a premium for a viewfinder hotshoe accessory!
So, how do you get people to buy into this? Take a page from auto manufacturers... (In fact, this whole thing is copped from the auto industry...) Make the camera look cool! Yeah, give it a "cute" retrto design! Clean lines, now that we've gotten rid of the unsightly "hump" that houses the prism - and while we're at it, let's get rid of the flash too! Yeah! So, if these "enthusiasts" wanna use a flash? They have to buy another accessory. Cheap out on the innards, make the camera look cool. Want other basic features other less expensive cameras have? It's an "accessory". All ala carte... (Make sure we have a Leica lens adapter ready before we go to market... heh, heh - wink...)
Well, nice racket was the 4/3rds game, while it lasted. At least EVIL cameras pass the lower production costs for what they leave out on to the consumer and don't skimp on the sensor size. APS-C is already a compromise over full frame. And, post all the pics you like, compact DSLRS are larger than 4/3 (because they have viewfinders, larger sensors, built-in flashes...etc) but the newer ones are well-designed, have good ergonomics, and their larger size with a prime lens is simply not enough to matter in any meaningful way.
As Ric Flair used to say, "...that's just the way it is, learn to love it. Wooooo!"
EDIT: Do note that with compact DSLRs, competition is causing more features to be included with the camera (like swivel screens) for less money with technology from higher end models being pushed downward. More for less... Not the case with 4/3... well maybe we'll see some of that now that the 4/3 racket has been exposed... It's hilarious that those who criticize entry-level DSLR models b-tch about them not "having enough buttons" and having to rely more on menus (a reasonable compromise to keep costs down...), will run off and buy a considerably more expensive 4/3 camera with a significantly smaller sensor and no viewfinder and no flash...
Here is what it says about sensor cost.
The cost of a digital sensor rises dramatically as its area increases. This means that a sensor with twice the area will cost more than twice as much, so you are effectively paying more per unit "sensor real estate" as you move to larger sizes.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm
I will hereby refer to 4/3 cameras as the "4/3 racket". Here's my belief. Increased competition and a flooded DSLR market leads to shrinking margins on prosumer/enthusiast cameras. Manufactors are seeking ways to improve margins by decreasing the production costs of their products, while increasing price. How to do this?
1. Reduce the cost of production by shrinking what matters most in terms of IQ in a digital camera body, and also costs the most to produce - its sensor. Sensor size effects:
A. Diffraction
B. Noise levels at higher ISO
C. Dynamic Range
D. Lens crop factors
2. And while we're at it, let's get rid of the next most expensive thing - the optical viewfinder, so you have to hold your arm out to frame and replace it with a cheaper to produce LCD (just like a cheap point-n-shoot...). (How is it that the many of the same users who tout, and pay a premium for, the excellent rangefinders in Leica are satisfied with just an LCD?) I can just hear the meetings in Oly's marketing department - In fact, "JB", while we're at it we can sucker these "enthusiasts" to pay even more by charging a premium for a viewfinder hotshoe accessory!
So, how do you get people to buy into this? Take a page from auto manufacturers... (In fact, this whole thing is copped from the auto industry...) Make the camera look cool! Yeah, give it a "cute" retrto design! Clean lines, now that we've gotten rid of the unsightly "hump" that houses the prism - and while we're at it, let's get rid of the flash too! Yeah! So, if these "enthusiasts" wanna use a flash? They have to buy another accessory. Cheap out on the innards, make the camera look cool. Want other basic features other less expensive cameras have? It's an "accessory". All ala carte... (Make sure we have a Leica lens adapter ready before we go to market... heh, heh - wink...)
Well, nice racket was the 4/3rds game, while it lasted. At least EVIL cameras pass the lower production costs for what they leave out on to the consumer and don't skimp on the sensor size. APS-C is already a compromise over full frame. And, post all the pics you like, compact DSLRS are larger than 4/3 (because they have viewfinders, larger sensors, built-in flashes...etc) but the newer ones are well-designed, have good ergonomics, and their larger size with a prime lens is simply not enough to matter in any meaningful way.
As Ric Flair used to say, "...that's just the way it is, learn to love it. Wooooo!"
EDIT: Do note that with compact DSLRs, competition is causing more features to be included with the camera (like swivel screens) for less money with technology from higher end models being pushed downward. More for less... Not the case with 4/3... well maybe we'll see some of that now that the 4/3 racket has been exposed... It's hilarious that those who criticize entry-level DSLR models b-tch about them not "having enough buttons" and having to rely more on menus (a reasonable compromise to keep costs down...), will run off and buy a considerably more expensive 4/3 camera with a significantly smaller sensor and no viewfinder and no flash...
Last edited: