Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: M4/3rds vs Nex Lens Systems  (Read 4506 times)
Chrisso26
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« on: November 19, 2013, 08:45:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello. Not a complete newbie. I was registered to the forum in an older incarnation.
Anyway……
I'm in a quandary regarding future lens investment.
I'm an amateur, not so prolific photographer. I have a Nex7 and love it. I grade raw in Capture One 7 and am very happy with my images.
I sometimes shoot video as an offshoot to my main profession. So I'm quasi-amateur filmmaker. I was using a Panasonic GH1 and have recently bought a Blackmagic Pocket Camera.
I'm getting on well with the Pocket camera, so no complaints there. In fact I love using both my Nex7 for stills and the Pocket for motion. Both are very small and relatively easy to use.
Here's the thing. I'm aware lenses are a better long term investment than bodies. The Nex is 'e' system, the Pocket is M4/3rds.
I've been using Leica M lenses on my Nex, but they don't look so good on the Pocket camera video. I have no 'e' format lenses and only have one M4/3rds lens (Voigtlander 25mm).
I've been lusting after the Ziess Touit lenses for Nex, but I need to invest in a couple of usable lenses for Pocket.
It kind of makes financial sense to ditch the Nex and buy an equivalent M4/3rds camera for stills. Stills and video using the same format lenses - with a couple of extras like the Leica M on adapters.
Q: Is there anything as good as the Nex7 in M4/3rds? I love it's small size and weight. GH3 is too big and bulky.
Any other advice regarding this fork in the road?
Logged
SZRitter
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156


« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2013, 09:48:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Short list on cameras: Olympus OM-D E-M1, Olympus OM-D Em-5, Olympus E-P5, Panasonic GX7. As far as image quality goes, probably not equal to the Nex 7, but very useable, depending on what you shoot.

What you will notice with M43 is there is a little less latitude in the lights and darks, and just a tiny bit more noise. I do miss the 14-bit RAW (Nikon D7000) that the APS Sony chips have. But, it depends on exactly how challenging and critical you will be.
Logged
Herbc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 110


« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2013, 10:56:11 AM »
ReplyReply

I had the Panasonic and Oly offerings, both quite easy to use.  IMHO, the NEX 7 is several steps above, due to the sensor and to the processing engine.  On top of that, use of major brand lenses is a VERY big deal.   I use Leica lenses with it, and
one can really tell the difference.
Logged
Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 882



« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2013, 01:50:26 PM »
ReplyReply

What you will notice with M43 is there is a little less latitude in the lights and darks, and just a tiny bit more noise. I do miss the 14-bit RAW (Nikon D7000) that the APS Sony chips have. But, it depends on exactly how challenging and critical you will be.

Just to note: a 14-bit analog-to-digital converter will give you, in theory if not always in practice, finer tonal gradation within a sensor's dynamic range than a 12-bit ADC. But it has no effect one way or the other on that dynamic range. (The quantizing process itself may discard or lose some gradation, some DR or even some of each. But that happens, if it happens, post sensor.) The technology allows for sensors with very high DR but coarse gradation, along with the opposite. Think of Kodachrome: limited DR (5 stops or so) but exceptionally fine gradation within that DR. Or negative film: high DR but generally coarser gradation. Current commercial sensors are somewhere in-between.

-Dave-
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7702


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 20, 2013, 02:31:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi

I am pretty sure any bit depth beyond DR is just wasted. Another fact seems to be that ADC-s are noisy, that is the basic fact behind the poor DR of Canon DSLRs. The sensor is first class but the ADCs are noisy. The last bits on 16 and 14 bit ADC-s are just noise. This is the reason Canons work that well at high ISO, the signal is amplified above the noise floor of the ADC, but doing that the voltage exceeds the range of the ADC so you need to reduce exposure to avoid clipping.

On chip ADC have much lower noise and can utilise the DR of the sensor fully, at low ISOs. At high ISO-s they work like an off chip ADC.

One of the reasons on chip ADC are better is that there are many of them, something like 6000 on the Sony Exmoor vs. 2-8 with off chip ADC-s. That really means that on chip ADCs can have 750- 3000 times the sampling time compared with off chip ADCs, a great advantage.

Best regards
Erik


Just to note: a 14-bit analog-to-digital converter will give you, in theory if not always in practice, finer tonal gradation within a sensor's dynamic range than a 12-bit ADC. But it has no effect one way or the other on that dynamic range. (The quantizing process itself may discard or lose some gradation, some DR or even some of each. But that happens, if it happens, post sensor.) The technology allows for sensors with very high DR but coarse gradation, along with the opposite. Think of Kodachrome: limited DR (5 stops or so) but exceptionally fine gradation within that DR. Or negative film: high DR but generally coarser gradation. Current commercial sensors are somewhere in-between.

-Dave-
Logged

Chrisso26
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2013, 03:19:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting, thanks.
The size and quality of the Nex7 is just perfect for me. I guess I'll just have to use it with my Leica lenses, although my widest is 28mm, which is why i was eyeing up the new Zeiss Touit's.
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #6 on: November 20, 2013, 07:37:01 PM »
ReplyReply

IMHO, the NEX 7 is several steps above, due to the sensor and to the processing engine. 
several steps ? nothing more than is justified by a bigger die... you forgot that Sony Imaging rarely can get the same bit of performance from Sony Semiconductor sensors as can others (Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, you name it)




Logged
SZRitter
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156


« Reply #7 on: November 21, 2013, 08:30:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Just to note: a 14-bit analog-to-digital converter will give you, in theory if not always in practice, finer tonal gradation within a sensor's dynamic range than a 12-bit ADC. But it has no effect one way or the other on that dynamic range. (The quantizing process itself may discard or lose some gradation, some DR or even some of each. But that happens, if it happens, post sensor.) The technology allows for sensors with very high DR but coarse gradation, along with the opposite. Think of Kodachrome: limited DR (5 stops or so) but exceptionally fine gradation within that DR. Or negative film: high DR but generally coarser gradation. Current commercial sensors are somewhere in-between.

-Dave-

Yeah, I guess I didn't separate those two thoughts very well. I know 14-bit doesn't apply to DR, but it does apply to your ability to process the photo in post. You can push it just a bit further without banding.

[hijack]Of course, there is one thing that has always puzzled me. If you know that your scene has a lower DR, say in studio, somewhere around 8 stops, wouldn't you be better with a sensor that has closer to that DR? Just like we would pick a film with more latitude if we know we are shooting in a scene that requires it. Of course, that could just be fanciful hogwash my mind made up.[/hijack]
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #8 on: November 21, 2013, 09:11:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, I guess I didn't separate those two thoughts very well. I know 14-bit doesn't apply to DR, but it does apply to your ability to process the photo in post. You can push it just a bit further without banding.
normal software can do proper dither instead of relying on noise (because that is what your 2+ bits are in those cases) for that purpose
Logged
Chrisso26
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #9 on: November 21, 2013, 03:06:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Back to the question…..
Is there anything in the M4/3rds product line that matches NEX7 for image quality and ergonomics/size?
Logged
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 21, 2013, 03:13:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I use M43. I love it.  I have shot some video that has come out really nicely. The NEX system is excellent and has some really good lenses. 

...BUT...

I think both systems are a bad investment.  It is more than probable that one or both of these systems will be defunct within five years.  Sony has shifted gears again toward this new mirrorless full frame format and Both the major M43 manufacturers have a very small and unprofitable market share (and Sony's isn't much better).

Don't buy either...unless you want to enjoy it now.  I have a big investment in M43, but as for investment lenses, I would stick with Canikon.  I have made quite a little circular economy by buying gear, using it for a year or two and then selling it on ebay or Fred Miranda forums.  With Canon gear I generally get 80% of my investment back.  On the Olympus gear it has been more like 65% of my investment back.  It just isn't in as great a demand. 

The reason to get these systems is not because they will last for 5 or 15 years. It is because you like it this year.
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Chrisso26
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #11 on: November 21, 2013, 04:25:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Reasonable.
I already own both systems, but I have no NEX lenses and only one M4/3rds lens.
All my lens investment is tied up in Leica M.
The M lenses don't look so great on the M4/3rds BMD video camera I have.
I can't see me starting a Nikon or Cannon lens collection from scratch (I'm over 50).
I guess I could buy Nikon format lenses for the BMD video camera and use adapters. Sigma for Nikon for example.
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #12 on: November 21, 2013, 07:38:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Is there anything in the M4/3rds product line that matches NEX7 for image quality and ergonomics/size?

you saw how Sony camera/Sony sensor fares vs non Sony Camera/smaller Sony sensor... that is about raw files

size = http://camerasize.com

ergonomics - it is way too personal thing, imho

Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1164


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 22, 2013, 06:10:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't think the m43 is a bad investment, but maybe because I've spent 10 grand on it, which seems like a lot until I look at a digital back or a Canon 1d anything, then it seems minor.
(It's funny how perspective changes).

M43 has a great lens system, the original olympus 43 mount was even better, though only semi works on the omd em1 and doesn't autofocus well at all on my gh3's which is drag because there are a lot of f2 lenses in four thirds that would be great for motion imagery.

The only drawback of both the nex and m43 is the lenses don't really work on anything else.  They obviously won't cover full frame and m43 not even super 35mm for video, but I guess that's not the end of the world considering you really can't move any autofocus lens from one maker to another maker's camera and get 100% full functionality without some glitch.

But even if m43 goes away, which I don't see happening given the amount of smaller cameras that have been sold, the cost is still very small considering what a lot of legacy cameras dropped to.  I mean what is a Canon 1ds worth today, $500?  That's $6,000 less than it was new, $3,000 less than 5 years ago.  I still have a d2x and I wonder what that would bring today, or how useful it really is?  Probably not much on both accounts.

When it comes to holding value digital sucks and the business model is buy new, buy new and by the way, by new.

Funny thing is I can pull files from my 1ds, 1ds2, 1ds3, 1dx and with modern processors don't see that much of a difference, so I think we've all been a little hoodwinked in thinking a new camera is going to make our images oh so much better.

I bought into the 43 system (never giving it a thought before) only for the video function of the gh3, which I think is beyond good for the price, then bought an em-5 olympus for some stills and because I liked the camera.  The gh3 was for biz, the em-5 for me.

Given all of that, I think it's a great system and if you can forget about the sensor size and only look at the final imagery, it's worth it.   I'll admit everytime I change a lens and look at that little sensor I suffer some cold water shrinkage, but the results are good.

The few things 43 needs to be truly professional is robust tethering, a very fast 10mm lens (with autofocus) and some samples that aren't cat photos and scenics of barns, showing detail of tree limbs.

I know they want to market these cameras as walk arounds, due to the size and weight, but they have a lot of professional possiblities and honestly how difficult is to make it tether through a usb cord?

IMO

BC




Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7702


WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 23, 2013, 05:23:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

4/3 is multivendor and quite stable. I guess it stays for long.

There is a recent video with Michael Richmann and CTein discussing things, among other things 4/3. What they say is that 4/3 good enough.

I would suggest that the good enough thing is important. For the technically best image you go for the best, but very few will see the advantage in real world images in print and screen.

Best regards
Erik


I don't think the m43 is a bad investment, but maybe because I've spent 10 grand on it, which seems like a lot until I look at a digital back or a Canon 1d anything, then it seems minor.
(It's funny how perspective changes).

M43 has a great lens system, the original olympus 43 mount was even better, though only semi works on the omd em1 and doesn't autofocus well at all on my gh3's which is drag because there are a lot of f2 lenses in four thirds that would be great for motion imagery.

The only drawback of both the nex and m43 is the lenses don't really work on anything else.  They obviously won't cover full frame and m43 not even super 35mm for video, but I guess that's not the end of the world considering you really can't move any autofocus lens from one maker to another maker's camera and get 100% full functionality without some glitch.

But even if m43 goes away, which I don't see happening given the amount of smaller cameras that have been sold, the cost is still very small considering what a lot of legacy cameras dropped to.  I mean what is a Canon 1ds worth today, $500?  That's $6,000 less than it was new, $3,000 less than 5 years ago.  I still have a d2x and I wonder what that would bring today, or how useful it really is?  Probably not much on both accounts.

When it comes to holding value digital sucks and the business model is buy new, buy new and by the way, by new.

Funny thing is I can pull files from my 1ds, 1ds2, 1ds3, 1dx and with modern processors don't see that much of a difference, so I think we've all been a little hoodwinked in thinking a new camera is going to make our images oh so much better.

I bought into the 43 system (never giving it a thought before) only for the video function of the gh3, which I think is beyond good for the price, then bought an em-5 olympus for some stills and because I liked the camera.  The gh3 was for biz, the em-5 for me.

Given all of that, I think it's a great system and if you can forget about the sensor size and only look at the final imagery, it's worth it.   I'll admit everytime I change a lens and look at that little sensor I suffer some cold water shrinkage, but the results are good.

The few things 43 needs to be truly professional is robust tethering, a very fast 10mm lens (with autofocus) and some samples that aren't cat photos and scenics of barns, showing detail of tree limbs.

I know they want to market these cameras as walk arounds, due to the size and weight, but they have a lot of professional possiblities and honestly how difficult is to make it tether through a usb cord?

IMO

BC





« Last Edit: November 23, 2013, 06:33:00 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 882



« Reply #15 on: November 23, 2013, 03:56:59 PM »
ReplyReply

4/3 is multivendor and quite stable. I guess it stays for long.

There is a recent video with Michael Richmann and CTein discussing things, among other things 4/3. What they say is that 4/3 good enough.

I would suggest that the good enough thing is important. For the technically best image you go for the best, but very few will see the advantage in real world images in print and screen.

That hits the nail on the head for me. I enjoy using lots of different cameras...for me the process of photographing has always been a huge part of my enjoyment of photography overall. What you've got in your hands or on your tripod and how you operate it...all this contributes to that process. But the results, on-screen or in a print propped up on my piano or stuck to the wall, are fine & dandy these days across the board. Which gives those of us in the non-pro world the freedom to use, within monetary constraints, whichever tools we most enjoy using. And it gives pros like BC more latitude too...surely a good thing given current commercial turbulence.

-Dave-
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1164


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 24, 2013, 06:59:29 PM »
ReplyReply

That hits the nail on the head for me. I enjoy using lots of different cameras...for me the process of photographing has always been a huge part of my enjoyment of photography overall. What you've got in your hands or on your tripod and how you operate it...all this contributes to that process.

-Dave-

Dave,

There you go you nailed it.  

Pro or amateur, if you enjoy what and how you do something the results are always better.

I personally love the m43 format and for stills the em5.

Leica, Voights, super 16 cmounts, along with a good basic lens line up.

Changing the crop in camera from 16x9 for cut frame still video to square is more of an advantage than most would think.  

Want to go old school.  Put a manual focus lens. with f stops on the lens,  on a em-5 pull out the screen and shoot it like a waist level camera and you have the results of a  tesla and a 67 corvette that had a baby.

I've been testing my Voigt Nokton 50mm 1.2 and 35mm 1.5 on the em-5 and they are not near as sharp as the OLY and pana autofocus lenses, but they have a soft glowing film like look.

I wanted to see the look before dropping 3k on the .95 lenses.

Also they are the only way I know that you can use a Leica 90mm and actually see the frame and focus quickly.

The cool thing is if you want to double your resolution, just switch from leica or Voigtlander to an oly and pana fast prime and your there, though to me the ultra sharp 43 lenses are a little too digital.

For T-mark.

If your still following this forum, do yourself a favor.  Let your fingers run, don't walk, and try a em-5 for two weeks.  Yes it takes two weeks.  First week to figure out the menu (then you set and you don't have to go back) another week to let the camera controls and the evf become normal.   I promise you, after you get used to the evf, you'll find an optical finder strange.

If you were interested in a manual focus Nikon FM in digital form, the em-5 or em-1 is it.  I know that sounds crazy considering it is so electronic, but the viewfinder is huge compared to most ovf and you can actually manual focus almost any lens and hit it, even wide open at 1.2 and without the zoom assist.  

I'd say go with an om1 but I think it's too expensive right now and you can buy three em-5's for the price of one df and even shoot some decent video.


For Olympus

What were you guys thinking changing the look of the em-5 when you made the em-1.  The em-5 is the only camera I've used that out leicas leica.



For all 4/3 makers.  

If your gonna go pro, go fast.  Please don't make any lens that is shorter than 75mm slower than 1.5, I'd even say 1.2.  Also make a hard line tether.   No matter the size of camera, everybody that shoots for commerce has to tether from time to time.

I've shot a lot with these 43 cameras  and they aren't just good enough, they're good.  I know the pixel peepers are going to scream at that thought ,but digital has changed the landscape.

What use to be large format is now 645, what use to be medium format is full frame 35mm, m43 is now 35mm and point and shoots, that's a smartphone.

Also these pana and olympus cameras autofocus fast and accurate, but the real key is you can manually focus.   Few modern cameras today manually focus as well as m43.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 12:09:57 AM by bcooter » Logged

HSakols
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 384


« Reply #17 on: November 25, 2013, 09:55:33 AM »
ReplyReply

I use an Olympus EPL5, mostly with the kit lens.  I wanted something that was a step up from a point and shoot and I got that and more. Still I haven't used it with a fast prime.  What do people think about the bokah (spelling?) of primes on m4/3?  Also what is the highest iso people are using and still happy with the results?  It is only a matter of time before I'll have to try 17mm 1.8 lens. Ctein (again spelling?) seemed quite happy with the Olympus 45mm. 
Logged
Glenn NK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 302


« Reply #18 on: November 25, 2013, 10:45:26 AM »
ReplyReply

BC said:

"What used to be large format is now 645, what used to be medium format is full frame 35 mm, m43 is now 35 mm and point and shoots, that's a smart phone."

Very interesting point, and I think quite accurate.

I enjoyed reading your posts on this thread - well thought out.  I've been thinking about M43 for quite a while; your comments have pushed me closer - it's just a matter of funding right now.

Glenn
Logged

Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 607


« Reply #19 on: November 25, 2013, 11:19:29 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm no micro 4/3 fan (far from it) but I have to say they have built up a very decent lens system no question about it.
Sony on the other hand have never really impressed with NEX, they have a few decent lenses..a few too many mediocre ones and it's far from complete either.

On the other hand if you're big into legacy glass it might not be a huge issue.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad