Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: MFT: the decline of the empire  (Read 16728 times)
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5071


« Reply #80 on: May 17, 2010, 08:26:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MatthewCromer
Huge mount for APS. . .
It is not huge: the NEX mount is only 6mm larger in both inner and outer diameter than the m4/3 mount, the same as the difference in sensor diagonal between m4/3 and current NEX sensors, and I have not seen suggestions that m4/3 mount is oversized: in fact one critic has claimed (wrongly though) that m4/3 mount is too small to accommodate the fastest 4/3 SLR lenses when used with adaptors. The mount size could well have be chosen simply to allow flexibility in lens designs, including the retro-focal wide angle lens designs needed when using sensors with microlenses, so that some lens designs might need to be far bulkier than film rangefinder camera lenses. (The short back-focus allowed by mirrorless designs does not at all eliminate the need for fairly high exit pupil position, a.k.a. "near telecentricity" and thus for highly retro-focal designs for good performance in the widest lenses.)
Maybe the mount just looks huge because the bodies are so low!
Quote
Sony will be going to NEX for their new pro video mount and this mount is likely the (longer term) future of their still photography also.
Sony has said only that it will be using NEX mount in one video camera: where has Sony said that NEX mount will take over in its pro video cameras? And what is the connection to 35mmFF (36x24mm) when none of Sony's video cameras are in that format, not even the $200,000+ Cine-Alta F35. In cine-cameras, 35mm format is "single frame", about 24mm wide, so about "APS-C" size.


By the way, several people have referred to Sony talking about Zeiss lenses for NEX: does anyone have a link for that?
« Last Edit: May 17, 2010, 08:29:37 PM by BJL » Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 549


« Reply #81 on: May 18, 2010, 04:05:59 AM »
ReplyReply

The mount isn't a lot smaller than A mount which caters for FF obviously. How big is the mount for Samsung's NX system? Certainly looks smaller than this Sony one, both APS-C sensors. Also with a smaller body (really small) it makes the mount look even larger. I guess it depends what you are after, I think the G1/NX type bodies are more appealing and practical for some users.

I don't think the technology is mature enough for these types of cameras, take a look at the size of the lenses v a bunch of Voigtländer lenses. No comparison at all, these are way bigger.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 04:09:49 AM by barryfitzgerald » Logged
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 546


« Reply #82 on: May 18, 2010, 11:00:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
It is time for me to give, up, because your arguments change in every post. You previously said that "Sony ... may trick newcomers into thinking it's a smaller system". To me, that is an accusation of stupidity, both through the use of the work "trick" and since your photographic comparison clearly shows to all but a very stupid person that not even the tiniest NEX body, with no flash, gives a smaller "camera with zoom" than the E-LP1, whose slight extra depth provides room for its pop-up flash. So now your argument shifts from being smaller, to being not so much larger, if you do not mind having to carry an add-on flash, which when attached makes the camera even messier to slip into a bag.

I agree though that my two primes was an underestimate; I was thinking of two regular rectilinear primes, overlooking special purpose lenses like fish-eyes and macros. So here are the facts:

- m4/3 has "regular" 17/2.8 and 20/1.7 lenses and a 45mm, f/2.8 macro, with Panasonic having also announced plans for a wider 14/2.8 and an 8mm fish-eye this year, for a total of four primes from Panasonic, five from the two makers: http://photorumors.com/wp-content/uploads/...s_1-534x400.jpg

- Samsung NX has a 30/2, and has announced plans for second wider regular prime, 20/2.8 and a 60/2.8 macro lens.

- Sony NEX has one wide 16/2.8 prime and has announced two supplementary lenses to convert it to wider rectilinear coverage and to fish-eye respectively, but with no announcements of plans for any other prime lenses.

So if working entirely with primes is your goal, perhaps you should be looking into either MFT or NX!

By the way, one draw-back of the "small looking body at all costs" NEX approach is that to add a half-decent built-in flash (which would have to pop-up to see over the bulky zoom lenses) or a conventional hot-shoe, some extra body depth would need to be added, making the bodies as deep as MFT or Samsung NX bodies ... just as enthusiast oriented compact digital cameras with flash hot-shoes (e.g. the G11) have deeper bodies that P&S compacts without hot-shoes (e.g S90). The NEX shallow body trick (and "trick" is your work, not mine!) only works if the body is stripped down in capabilities.

The fundamentals of the NEX system are clearly not designed with the needs of experienced, prime lens only using photographic enthusiasts in mind --- even less so that the other two mirrorless systems.

  Yeah, I think we're at a misunderstanding about my comments about being "tricked."  I certainly didn't mean it to imply stupidity on anyone's part.  I posted those pictures to show the size relationship between NEX and the GF1 with kit lens.  I've said many times that the Olympus' folding kit lens is obviously smaller.  However, the length of the Panny and NEX with kit lens is similar.  So, by "tricked" I simply mean that Sony can say "we have the smallest ILC out there," when, in actuality, it's only smaller than the GF1 in 2 of the 3 dimensions with a kit lens, and is actually larger than the EPL-1 in one dimension with the kit lens.  

  I've been waiting for a small, interchangeable lens APS-C camera that can take primes.  I have little interest in m4/3 due to DOF and sensor performance.  Samsung may just be the right camera for me, but I was hoping to mount M lenses, which it can't do, and I don't like the mini-DSLR design.  NEX is the closest thing that works for me, but Sony needs to bring a standard prime (or M lenses need to work well.)
Logged
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 546


« Reply #83 on: May 18, 2010, 11:13:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: barryfitzgerald
The mount isn't a lot smaller than A mount which caters for FF obviously. How big is the mount for Samsung's NX system? Certainly looks smaller than this Sony one, both APS-C sensors. Also with a smaller body (really small) it makes the mount look even larger. I guess it depends what you are after, I think the G1/NX type bodies are more appealing and practical for some users.

I don't think the technology is mature enough for these types of cameras, take a look at the size of the lenses v a bunch of Voigtländer lenses. No comparison at all, these are way bigger.

  I agree with BJL that the NEX mount isn't unnecessarily large, Barry.  Voigtlander M lenses (and M lenses in general) aren't designed for digital, and anything around 35mm or wider has a hard time performing well on digital, because the light rays at the edges are severely angled.  That's why Leica has had a heck of a time designing sensors with special microlenses to deal with the edges of the sensor.  m4/3 has a particularly tough time with M lenses, because, although the sensor is smaller than APS-C and 35mm, the toppings on the sensor are thicker than just about anything out there.  At ~4.5mm, these toppings are nearly double the thickness of most, and considerably thicker than the M9's.  This wreaks havoc at the edges with M lenses, and I'm hoping the NEX (although the sensor is bigger) performs better with 35mm M lenses. We'll see.

link to interesting thread about sensor glass thickness.

*note: one exception seems to be the Contax 35mm f2 G rangefinder lens.  Its design allows it to perform well on m4/3.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 11:13:42 AM by douglasf13 » Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5071


« Reply #84 on: May 18, 2010, 03:06:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: douglasf13
I've been waiting for a small, interchangeable lens APS-C camera that can take primes.  I have little interest in m4/3 due to DOF and sensor performance.  Samsung may just be the right camera for me, but I was hoping to mount M lenses, which it can't do, and I don't like the mini-DSLR design.  NEX is the closest thing that works for me, but Sony needs to bring a standard prime (or M lenses need to work well.)
Perhaps we agree on this: if and when Sony offers primes f/2 or faster at the focal lengths you want, it will likely be the best of the mirrorless digital systems for you. Because then (but not until!) its lenses will offer shallower DOF options and better low light performance than m4/3 with its fastest current lens, the 20/1.7. And there will likely soon be adaptors for using M mount lenses on NEX, and indeed for using almost every 35mm format lens ever made that has an aperture ring, so long as you do not mind manual focus and stop-down metering. I believe that Novoflex has indicated its plans for NEX-to-old-lens adaptors, like the numerous ones it already makes for m4/3.

P. S. Having read your post above and its link more carefully, I am skeptical that Sony has any incentive to keep the sensor topping thickness down to the level that Leica has strived for (first by omitting the IR filter in the M8, then making it very thin in the M9, and so a bit underperforming), let alone to add off-center micro-lenses. So I suspect that many lenses designed for film rangefinders will always have their "issues" when used on any of the new mirrorless digital systems.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 03:15:17 PM by BJL » Logged
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 546


« Reply #85 on: May 18, 2010, 03:42:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
P. S. Having read your post above and its link more carefully, I am skeptical that Sony has any incentive to keep the sensor topping thickness down to the level that Leica has strived for (first by omitting the IR filter in the M8, then making it very thin in the M9, and so a bit underperforming), let alone to add off-center micro-lenses. So I suspect that many lenses designed for film rangefinders will always have their "issues" when used on any of the new mirrorless digital systems.

Absolutely.  There is no way that the NEX sensor toppings will be at Leica levels.  However, even if Sony uses a more standard thickness, in the ~2-3mm range, it'll be a substantial improvement over m4/3's ~4.5mm.  Granted, the NEX sensor is bigger than m4/3, so it could all even itself out.  Like I mentioned earlier, the Contax G 35mm f2 shouldn't be a problem, but those adapters are a bit more complicated (focusing gears,) and I don't know if/when we'll see those for NEX (they just became readily available for m4/3 in the last few months, I believe.)

p.s. here's some good news about that mediocre seeming 16mm NEX prime:  link
« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 04:08:42 PM by douglasf13 » Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5071


« Reply #86 on: May 19, 2010, 10:55:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: douglasf13
p.s. here's some good news about that mediocre seeming 16mm NEX prime:  link
This back-tracking (after describing the gear sent out for review review as production models), along with Sony's acknowledgement that it intends its E-mount to A-mount adaptors to support AF when used with those A-mount lenses that have AF motors but did not manage to do so at initial release and suggesting that a firmware update will fix that, gives the air of some rush in bringing NEX to market. Hopefully Sony will get the kinks worked out, including maybe a bit of downsizing of future zoom lenses.

Olympus showed similar signs of a rush in the early days of m4/3 like the peculiar absence of an EVF option for the E-P1 and its 17/2.8 being inferior to the Panasonic 20/1.7. I get the feeling that for now, Panasonic is the pacesetter.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2010, 10:56:10 AM by BJL » Logged
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 546


« Reply #87 on: May 19, 2010, 12:38:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
This back-tracking (after describing the gear sent out for review review as production models), along with Sony's acknowledgement that it intends its E-mount to A-mount adaptors to support AF when used with those A-mount lenses that have AF motors but did not manage to do so at initial release and suggesting that a firmware update will fix that, gives the air of some rush in bringing NEX to market. Hopefully Sony will get the kinks worked out, including maybe a bit of downsizing of future zoom lenses.

Agreed.  I think the whole seem things rushed.  We'll have to wait and see whether that was a good move or not.
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2907

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #88 on: May 19, 2010, 01:07:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
Olympus showed similar signs of a rush in the early days of m4/3 like the peculiar absence of an EVF option for the E-P1 and its 17/2.8 being inferior to the Panasonic 20/1.7. I get the feeling that for now, Panasonic is the pacesetter.

The same is with the 14-4xmm lenses: the Panasonic has much better IQ than the Olympus version. But prices reflect the IQ - the Olympus lenses are much cheaper.

I don't see the delay on offering EVF peculiar at all; I bet its sales are minimal, especially at the offered price.
Logged

tnargs
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


« Reply #89 on: May 22, 2010, 08:44:26 PM »
ReplyReply

1. Cameras that fit in the breast pocket of my shirt
(= the real day to day cameras, like a photo mobile)
CAMERAS THAT I CAN SMOKE

2. Cameras that fit in the pocket of my jacket
(= the clumsy day to day camera - Compact, P/S, etc)
CAMERAS THAT I CAN SNACK ON

3. Cameras that fit in a bigger jacket and need one or two additional pockets for lenses and stuff
(= the tools of the undecided: MFT, FF RF, like Leica M)
CAMERAS THAT I CAN DRINK AFTER LUNCH

4. Cameras that do not really fit in a jackets pocket anymore.
(=the even bigger and more expensive tools of the undecided - DSLRs, Leica S2 etc)
CAMERAS THAT I CAN CARRY IN MY KIDS' TRAILER-TROLLEY TO CHECK THE MAIL

5. First real cameras
(= For the freaklings - Rollei, Bronica, Hassies (System V) and the like)
CAMERAS THAT I CAN CONSIGN TO HISTORY AND CASH IN FOR MORE THEN THEY ARE WORTH

6. Tank cameras
(=  For the real freaks - Mamiya Press, Arca Swiss, Alpa and such)
CAMERAS THAT I CAN DRIVE IN

7. Spaceship cameras
(= For the really big freaks = 4x5'' and above)
CAMERAS THAT I CAN LIVE IN

8. Camera mutations (x-tra category)
(= Cameras for artists: Paper and pencil, Holga (with mayonese or mustard on the lens), Kodak box, pinhole cameras, sand and finger, Lomography, etc ...)
CAMERAS THAT I CAN BREED

 
Logged
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 546


« Reply #90 on: May 29, 2010, 10:15:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Here is an interesting size comparison of the NEX-3 and the G10 with their standard kit lenses.  The NEX-3 is the slightly larger of the two NEX cameras.



 
« Last Edit: May 29, 2010, 10:15:37 AM by douglasf13 » Logged
Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2508


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #91 on: May 29, 2010, 10:21:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Both don't fit into my shirts chest pocket...
Logged

douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 546


« Reply #92 on: May 29, 2010, 11:21:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ChristophC
Both don't fit into my shirts chest pocket...

  Agreed.  That's why I'd only shoot primes with either camera.  That gets the NEX close to shirt pocketable.  I guess it depends on the size of the shirt.  lol.
Logged
Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1273



WWW
« Reply #93 on: May 29, 2010, 02:38:06 PM »
ReplyReply


IMO talking about day to day portability only makes sense in M4/3 with pancake primes. On the other side, I find fast pancake primes the really interesting usage for these cameras.

If I were to use a zoom on a M4/3 camera, I'd take my 350D instead, with a better performance sensor than today's M4/3 Panas and Olys and similar portability.

Regards
Logged

Pelao
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 199



« Reply #94 on: May 30, 2010, 12:11:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Guillermo Luijk
IMO talking about day to day portability only makes sense in M4/3 with pancake primes. On the other side, I find fast pancake primes the really interesting usage for these cameras.

If I were to use a zoom on a M4/3 camera, I'd take my 350D instead, with a better performance sensor than today's M4/3 Panas and Olys and similar portability.

Regards

I find that the overall 'bulk' of my GF1 is considerably less than even a compact DSLR, such as the 350D. So, certainly the GF1 with pancake is smaller, but if I pack it along with the 14-45 zoom into one of my tiny Crumpler bags I have a very useful and compact kit. Yes, a camera like the 350D has a better sensor, but how much better, really, is the image quality?

For my purposes, which means street and candid photography, the M43 systems offer tiny, powerful and discreet packages with excellent image quality for the intended output - to print or online. The overall bulk is way less than a compact DSLR, and of course dramatically different than my 5D.

I have been very pleasantly surprised by the GF1 , which I chose over the EP series largely because of what I regard as a superior UI.

Logged
Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1273



WWW
« Reply #95 on: May 30, 2010, 07:57:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Pelao
Yes, a camera like the 350D has a better sensor, but how much better, really, is the image quality?
Nearly one extra stop in dynamic range, i.e. the GF1 displays twice as much noise in the shadows as the 350D. Not to mention you can get a second hand 350D for 150 EUR, but need to pay 500 EUR for a GF1.

IMO the nicest of M4/3 is using pancake and adapted vintage lenses. From this point of view the Olympus approach is better: all those old and cheap fast primes automatically become stabilished lenses. Stabilisation means longer exposure times, this means more light hitting the sensor, this means less noise and that means higher IQ.

Regards
« Last Edit: May 30, 2010, 07:58:23 AM by Guillermo Luijk » Logged

Pelao
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 199



« Reply #96 on: May 30, 2010, 08:36:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Guillermo Luijk
Nearly one extra stop in dynamic range, i.e. the GF1 displays twice as much noise in the shadows as the 350D. Not to mention you can get a second hand 350D for 150 EUR, but need to pay 500 EUR for a GF1.

IMO the nicest of M4/3 is using pancake and adapted vintage lenses. From this point of view the Olympus approach is better: all those old and cheap fast primes automatically become stabilished lenses. Stabilisation means longer exposure times, this means more light hitting the sensor, this means less noise and that means higher IQ.

Regards


Ahh yes, the measurements. Of course they do matter, but the measurement that matters most to me is that of the human looking at the end print or image on screen. I identify with the idea that the best camera is the one with you, and I have no hesitation grabbing my Gf1 because it never gets in the way. Anyone looking at the resulting prints to the level where they spot the difference is, in my view, not enjoying the image and the story it tells. They're busy looking at pixels, and not too interested in photography.

I find this piece, written by Michael a while back, interesting:
G10 prints

Another piece which covers some similar subjects:
Field Notes

I deeply appreciate the deeper and broader capabilities of my larger cameras, and I certainly don't disagree with how important those things can be. My now 'elderly' 5D remains a favourite: the files are simply delicious.

But I also appreciate amazing images shot by small, available film cameras many years ago. My GF1 only needs a better photographer behind it to be able to print to the same quality. I would rather spend time with camera in hand, or on tripod, than pixel-peeping or examining charts.

But then, I am generally recognized as being a bot odd. Oh well.  



Logged
Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1273



WWW
« Reply #97 on: May 30, 2010, 08:53:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Pelao
Ahh yes, the measurements. Of course they do matter, but the measurement that matters most to me is that of the human looking at the end print or image on screen.
I never talked about measurements, I talked about noise displayed in the images. Please re-read my post to confirm.

Regards
Logged

Pelao
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 199



« Reply #98 on: May 30, 2010, 09:29:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Guillermo Luijk
I never talked about measurements, I talked about noise displayed in the images. Please re-read my post to confirm.

Regards

Well, not to be pedantic, but:

Quote
Nearly one extra stop in dynamic range
That sounds like a measurement. Of course, you complete by saying:
Quote
i.e. the GF1 displays twice as much noise in the shadows as the 350D

And I am sure you are spot on. But, can  it be noticed? Does it make a real and practical difference to the output?

I think sometimes yes, sometimes no. To quote more specifically from one of the linked pieces, Michael makes a few points as follows:

Quote
Please note that what I'm describing here is really not new when it comes to comparing high-end 35mm DSLRs to medium format systems. We've all done such comparisons for years, and know that the advantages of large sensors and MF systems are best seen in large prints and in critical applications. The only thing that's different now is that instead of comparing an MF system with a DSLR I'm comparing it to a digicam, though a 15 megapixel one to be sure.

Be aware as well that these comparisons fall down when prints over about 13X19" are made. Once the output resolution drops below 200PPI the advantages of a 39 Megapixel sensor over a 15 Megapixels sensor become evident. And, even when smaller prints are made, cropping becomes an issue.

Also, though on prints up to 13X19" differences are almost impossible to see, on-screen at 100% one can fairly easily tell which files are from the G10. There are artifacts visible at the micro detail level and one can easily see other hints of what one is paying for.

But, where the rubber meets the road (or more to the point where the ink hits the paper), in medium sized prints it's been almost impossible for experienced photographers who I've shown these comparison prints to to tell the difference. Scary.

Anyway, innovation and continuous improvement are giving us choice, options and great prices. Happy shooting, I say.

Logged
Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1273



WWW
« Reply #99 on: May 30, 2010, 09:37:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Pelao
Well, not to be pedantic, but:
If you really don't want to be pedantic, just don't make this story last more. I said the 350D sensor displays half the noise the GF1's in the shadows. That means 2 things: the difference in noise is visible, and the 350D has one extra stop in DR. End of the story.
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad