Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: M4/3rds vs Nex Lens Systems  (Read 4442 times)
Chrisso26
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


« Reply #20 on: November 25, 2013, 04:12:41 PM »
ReplyReply

I think the Sony Nex lens issue is a non argument.
Zeiss Touit are excellent and available in several different and useful versions. The two main Sigma lenses (19mm and 30mm) are extremely cheap and are producing sensational quality images.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 05:46:21 PM by Chrisso26 » Logged
Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1291



WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 25, 2013, 05:40:57 PM »
ReplyReply

If you want to shoot AF, just because NEX doesn't have this (and Sony doesn't seem to be able to design such quality/size lenses):





I would choose M4/3 without any doubt.


If you are interested in MF, I'd choose Sony, but the A7.


Regards
Logged

peterottaway
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


« Reply #22 on: November 25, 2013, 08:05:28 PM »
ReplyReply



I think there is something lacking in the translation. My Nex 7 will AF with all my AF designed lenses. And MF with all my old Mf designed lenses.






Logged
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 26, 2013, 01:21:14 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm just not sure that any of these marginalized players have the financial fortitude to stay in this business indefinitely.  Among the marginal players, M43 companies, and Fuji don't have the reach that Sony has as far as retail distribution is concerned.  Sony has the best chance, but their lens-collection is one of the weaker of the compact systems.  New entries by Zeiss may eventually change that. 

Another possible change that could make a big difference is if another manufacturer got more heavily involved in M43.  Variously there have been rumors of a Sony M43 (seems doubtful) and now of a Sigma M43. http://www.43rumors.com/sigma-is-considering-to-launch-a-mft-system-camera/ 

The Sigma entry would be a big deal because it would bring a bit more critical mass to lenses, accessories and body availability.  Sigma could drive prices down and quality up.  I am not holding my breath though it would be wonderful.

Don't get me wrong.  I love M43. I think it is a great compromise.  I have a large investment myself, and honestly I am a bit of a booster of the format (though I try not to range into fanboy talk), but the financial considerations are running against M43.  The best technology doesn't always win (see betamax, HDDVD, Plasma TV, DC power, etc...). 
Logged

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

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

Posts: 30


« Reply #24 on: November 26, 2013, 02:43:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Panasonic are fully signed up to M4/3rds. Panasonic are a large global electronics company.
You can look at it many ways. One company makes cameras in the E mount format. Several companies make cameras in the M4/3rds format. I actually think E mount is more dodgy going forward, especially as Sony are split between E mount and A mount. At least Panasonic and Olympus are 100% M4/3rds.
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #25 on: November 26, 2013, 04:57:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Sigma could drive prices down and quality up. 
are you talking about cameras ? somehow SD* and DP* do not speak about quality... plus we have enough m43 bodies w/ more styles than competition and w/ various prices....  lenses another story, but Sigma already makes m43 lenses and Sigma is a part of m43 for quite some time.
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1159


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 28, 2013, 01:27:13 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm just not sure that any of these marginalized players have the financial fortitude to stay in this business indefinitely.  Among the marginal players, M43 companies, and Fuji don't have the reach that Sony has as far as retail distribution is concerned.  Sony has the best chance, but their lens-collection is one of the weaker of the compact systems.  New entries by Zeiss may eventually change that. 



Olympus sold 1.15 billion dollars in cameras in 2012, though obviously they had some severe management problems.

M43 when you combine Panasonic and Olympus sales are #3 behind Canon and Nikon and have twice the sales numbers of sony still cameras.

Sony has a retail reach, but Sony is all over the place in what they sell and what direction they go.

Sony is also the king of holding back features to move you up to the next highest model.   Given they are smart and innovative, but every motion camera they sell is held back with features until you get into the very high range.

Where Sony goes with still photography is still a less than transparent business model.  A series, E series, both?  Who knows, but they obviously didn't make the breakthrough like they planned so to the the A7 is interesting, but doesn't have the complete usability of a lot of the competition.

At least with Paansonic for the money they didn't hobble their gh3, just the opposite and  probably will turn the world around with the gh4 (at least for video) and Olympus makes no bones about making the best still camera they can for the money.

Honestly I'd love a larger sensor in the Olympus, but given my choice today over a A series sony or the OMD em-1, I'd take the olympus first because I know where they are going and m43 seems to have new lens offerings daily.

IMO

BC
Logged

MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 908



WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 29, 2013, 09:36:56 AM »
ReplyReply

"and honestly how difficult is to make it tether through a usb cord?"

ask phase-1.
 Roll Eyes
Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 607


« Reply #28 on: December 06, 2013, 04:18:58 AM »
ReplyReply


Olympus sold 1.15 billion dollars in cameras in 2012, though obviously they had some severe management problems.

M43 when you combine Panasonic and Olympus sales are #3 behind Canon and Nikon and have twice the sales numbers of sony still cameras.

Sony has a retail reach, but Sony is all over the place in what they sell and what direction they go.

Sony is also the king of holding back features to move you up to the next highest model.   Given they are smart and innovative, but every motion camera they sell is held back with features until you get into the very high range.

Where Sony goes with still photography is still a less than transparent business model.  A series, E series, both?  Who knows, but they obviously didn't make the breakthrough like they planned so to the the A7 is interesting, but doesn't have the complete usability of a lot of the competition.

At least with Paansonic for the money they didn't hobble their gh3, just the opposite and  probably will turn the world around with the gh4 (at least for video) and Olympus makes no bones about making the best still camera they can for the money.

Honestly I'd love a larger sensor in the Olympus, but given my choice today over a A series sony or the OMD em-1, I'd take the olympus first because I know where they are going and m43 seems to have new lens offerings daily.

IMO

BC


On target mostly.
I agree Sony has recently been doing this "cutting back" on entry models esp the A series ones (unimpressed with their cost cutting plastic mounts etc)
They do seem unfortunately to be trying to cobble lower end models more and more.

However I would have to give the king of crippling to Nikon. They are now the only maker to not offer wireless flash on the D3200/5300 models everyone else does (bar the EOS 100d), they also don't allow HSS on those models, again everyone else has had this for ages and ages. Nikon also cobble backwards compatibility on these models with no in body AF motor, and no metering for older lenses  I've Minolta film bodies that can do that over a decade old  Roll Eyes So let's put the real king of cut down crown where it really belongs!

The A mount from Sony is only interesting "if"
You acquire a bunch of good but very reasonably priced Minolta lenses (there are some very good ones at very silly cheap prices) and they will AF on all A Mount bodies (bar the SSM on older film models), a few ho hum ones out there, but most of them are actually very strong optically
Or you pick up a bunch of Tamron non stabilised glass again at good prices (think 90mm f2.8, 17-50mm, maybe the older 70-200mm f2.Cool and enjoy the IBIS for free without having to pay extra for in lens IS.

For bargain hunters A mount "can" be a compelling options, but unless you go down that road above I personally don't recommend A mount.
Sony do some good A mount lenses, they can make good optics. Problem is they are not cheaper than Canikon in some cases a bit more. Thus wasting the incentive of IBIS.

I believe this is one reason why Sony have not done as well as they expected, little reason for most to pick them over Canikon. But if you like Tamron glass and are ok with s/h purchases, you can build up quite a good system for a very modest outlay.

Micro 4/3 has it's point small being one, the lenses seem good and reasonably priced. I have to say I do like the Fuji X concept, though they have to iron out the issues and quirks still. Fuji's lack of proper flash is a real turn off though, no HSS, no wireless they need to address that big time. Hard choice for anyone starting from scratch. I personally don't care that much for NEX or E mount, I think you'd be better served lenses wise shoving A mount glass on there with an adaptor.

Problem for A Mount users is you have to buy that adaptor and it won't AF with screw drive lenses, the other one has the SLT mirror so you add the cost up and it's going to cost you more to buy a NEX with an adaptor you'd be better off with an A Mount body. You lose IBIS as well.

« Last Edit: December 06, 2013, 04:22:24 AM by barryfitzgerald » Logged
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 06, 2013, 07:26:47 AM »
ReplyReply


Olympus sold 1.15 billion dollars in cameras in 2012, though obviously they had some severe management problems.

M43 when you combine Panasonic and Olympus sales are #3 behind Canon and Nikon and have twice the sales numbers of sony still cameras.

Sony has a retail reach, but Sony is all over the place in what they sell and what direction they go.

Sony is also the king of holding back features to move you up to the next highest model.   Given they are smart and innovative, but every motion camera they sell is held back with features until you get into the very high range.

Where Sony goes with still photography is still a less than transparent business model.  A series, E series, both?  Who knows, but they obviously didn't make the breakthrough like they planned so to the the A7 is interesting, but doesn't have the complete usability of a lot of the competition.

At least with Paansonic for the money they didn't hobble their gh3, just the opposite and  probably will turn the world around with the gh4 (at least for video) and Olympus makes no bones about making the best still camera they can for the money.

Honestly I'd love a larger sensor in the Olympus, but given my choice today over a A series sony or the OMD em-1, I'd take the olympus first because I know where they are going and m43 seems to have new lens offerings daily.

IMO

BC

Revenue isn't the most important thing. Profit is. 

It is irrelevant to add Olympus and Panasonic together and then compare them.  They operate independently and neither is burning down the house with sales and profits from M43 cameras. 

I agree that Sony is all over the map with their offering.  They don't seem to stick with any one thing long enough for it to take hold.  M43 has done better in that regard.  Sony probably has the deepest pockets of the bunch--though Panasonic is pretty huge too.  The difference is that sony is a consumer products company and Panasonic is much more diversivied and has a weaker retail channel than Sony.  I still contend that Panasonic and Sony stay in the market to hedge their bets regarding video and still convergence.  They really don't care as much about the still camera market like Olympus does.  Despite my preference for still cameras, that might be a mistake for Olympus (and Nikon who also hasn't emphasized video as much). 

...and finally, a larger sensor in M43 will undermine its one unique attribute--smaller lenses with excellent quality. 

Larger sensor = larger lenses.  I believe this to remain true today. Aside from some normal-range fixed-focal-length lenses, none of the manufacturers have mass-produced a high-quality, truly-compact, full-frame lens.  There have been some cameras with ~35mm lenses that have been good.  I haven't seen a good and compact wide angle lens or telephoto lens. 

Remember I am saying this all as a M43 booster. I really want them to be successful with this format.  Right now it isn't about having a great product. Their success is about marketing--convincing the markets that M43 is as good as larger format sensors.  They aren't winning that air-war yet.  I hope they do, because I believe in the trade-offs they are making. 
Logged

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

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

Posts: 5161


« Reply #30 on: December 06, 2013, 07:45:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Fike,
    Lumping Olympus and Panasonic together is relevant for some things.

Firstly, for the ability to share some technologies, like sensors.

Secondly for the "network effects" of the system, like the wide array of lenses that the two makers together provide, and the fact that their combined sales volume can influence decisions by other companies about designing and offering sensors, lenses and such for the system.

Thirdly, the related "herd effect": many potential customers make choices partly on perceived "success" as measured by the number of people they see or hear of using the product or saying nice things about it, and this perception seems often based on "Micro Four Thirds" as a whole rather than the individual brands.
Logged
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #31 on: December 06, 2013, 08:27:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Fike,
    Lumping Olympus and Panasonic together is relevant for some things.

Firstly, for the ability to share some technologies, like sensors.

Secondly for the "network effects" of the system, like the wide array of lenses that the two makers together provide, and the fact that their combined sales volume can influence decisions by other companies about designing and offering sensors, lenses and such for the system.

Thirdly, the related "herd effect": many potential customers make choices partly on perceived "success" as measured by the number of people they see or hear of using the product or saying nice things about it, and this perception seems often based on "Micro Four Thirds" as a whole rather than the individual brands.


All you say is true. I should have been more explicitl. I meant that in the context of revenue and profit.
Logged

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

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
jcollier
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #32 on: December 07, 2013, 05:59:54 PM »
ReplyReply

As an ex (but still occassional) pixel peeper I have a few observations. I have enthusiastically used Canon C cropped and FF cameras, with a variety of quality lenes, including L glass. I have also used Sony, Fujifilm, Olympus 4/3rds and Sigma cameras. Honestly, I like them all and enjoy using all of them. They are all capable of producing excellent print quality. At the pixel level I've had the best results with Canon FF and L glass. No surprise there.

Over the past year I have undergone a paradigm shift in my thinking. I rediscovered some of the fundamental truths about why I enjoy photography. First, it's all about image quality. Second, it's all about image quality. I purchased the Sigma DP2M because of its reported image quality. There were a lot of negative aspects: battery life and low light performance being the major complaints. I can confirm that these are valid. This is a camera that forces you to think in order to get the most out of it - just like in the film days. However, the resulting image quality is absolutely stunning. It equals, any in many cases exceeds FF performance and rivals that of medium format. Best of all, it can be carried in a large pocket.

I also discovered M4/3rds. I purchased an EM5 along with several quality primes and Panasonic zooms (12-35, 35-100, 7-14). I was amazed at the image quality that can be produced with this camera and good glass. It easily matches that of the 5D2 with equivalent L lenses at a fraction of the size.

Both the Sigma DP2M and Olympus E5M produce a film like quality in very compact packages. However, there are a lot of cameras now available that are capable of producing similar performance. Is the NEX 7 the best camera? Maybe. That's up to you if it best fits your needs.. The best answer that I've heard to the question "what is the best camera" is "the one that you have with you." When you have a camera/lens combination that you like, you tend to use it. Miniscule differences in techical measurements won't matter. You will never see them in real image quality if you understand and know how to use your equipment. Color depth, dynamic range, noise and pixel count are great sophistic topics but are largely irrelevant when compared with the importance of good basic techniques. Just about all of the current crop of digital cameras are capable of producing excellent quality images in capable hands.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad