Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Digital Cameras > CSC : Digital Compact System Cameras -

CSC : Digital Compact System Cameras - This new category of digital Compact System Cameras with interchangeable lenses was mislabeled for a time as "Mirrorless Cameras" by those forgetting about "Mirrorless" Rangefinder cameras.  Such confusion is easily understandable, since interchangeable rangefinder cameras were only recently introduced in 1932.  hmm.    CSC or Compact System Camera is probably the best category description to date, although I am fond of the old RFF desigation of  CEVIL  indicating Compact Electronic Viewfidner Interchangeable Lens.   This forum is here at RFF because via adapters these cameras offer an inexpensive way to use rangefinder lenses on digital cameras -- in addition of just about every 35mm SLR lens you can think of.  All  offer the photo enthusiast an incredible array of adopted lenses which was not possible before these new digital formats.   This group continues to grow in popularity and new camera models! 

View Poll Results: Which new features you would like to see for Samsung NX?
More fast prime lenses (which ones?) 22 56.41%
Fast zoom lenses (which ones?) 1 2.56%
Compatibility with Leica M-mount lenses (e.g. via adapter) 21 53.85%
in-body IS system 18 46.15%
body design changes (please specify) 7 17.95%
new features (please specify) 3 7.69%
viewfinder with more pixels 9 23.08%
viewfinder with large magnification 11 28.21%
more megapixels 0 0%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 39. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Where should Samsung with NX aim ?
Old 02-24-2010   #1
Matus
Registered User
 
Matus's Avatar
 
Matus is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Frankfurt, DE
Posts: 1,843
Where should Samsung with NX aim ?

Samsung NX is a rather new player on the market - far from being the only one. However in the PMA Seung Soo Par - Samsungs representative (among others) said:

"...Over 30% of customers are registering their NX10 - they really want to communicate with us. They're checking for firmware updates every day so we're learning to be more pro-active, trying to improve our service ..."

also

"... company had been ‘very surprised’ by the popularity of the 30mm f/2 pancake lens. 'For every 100 kit zooms we sell, we sell 50 pancakes, ..."

and importantly

"... enhanced communication with customers and firmware updates for its cameras based on their requests ..."

So - with all the above - what would be your wish - where should be Samsung heading to with their future developments? What features/lenses/acessories would you like to see comming for the NX?

Let's make this poll to be a message for Samsung.

I start with a few I have collected in the poll - please describe your ideas.
__________________
________
Matus
... Flickr galleries: New Zealand , Spain
... per camera: Olympus XA , Jupiter J3 , Rolleiflex T, Mamiya 6, Ricoh GRDIII shots
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2010   #2
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,672
This camera is a big deal. It's not a "digital rangefinder", it's the first "digital era's rangefinder". Get it? It's not a hybrid like DSLRs or digital rangefinders married to legacy technology (albeit great technology...). Since I am brilliant in so many ways, cameras and stuff being one of the more trivial matters in this regard, and I'm always right...I knew this was "the" camera the nanosecond I read its specs. That's why so many - including myself when it eventually is released in the US, are going for the 30mm f2 pancake. You can keep the kit zoom. It's a 46mm focal length in 35, just like the Yashica GSN and many others from the classical RF era. Sorry, the 4/3's made too many concessions. No EVFs and - a bigger deal, sensor size. Sorry, they're glorified PnS's with interchangeable lenses. That's not the case with the Samsung. I don't care what name is on the lens or how sexay they look. No thanks, no sale. I votes more fast primes, of course... But I'd be perfectly happy with just the 30mm pancake. As for adapters, 3rd parties will fill that void soon enough. If you don't understand the importance of this offering from Samsung, you do not understand rangefinder-style photography.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2010   #3
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,672
By the way Wired says Samsung is releasing more interesting
lenses for the camera, including:

20mm ƒ2.8 pancake
60mm ƒ2.7 macro

Zero to Hero: Five New NX Lenses Put Samsung in the Game
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/...#ixzz0gV0wnWQ8
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2010   #4
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
I knew this was "the" camera the nanosecond I read its specs.
Ah. Do you take photos with "the specs"?

Samsung need a strong product to break into this market, and they appear to have produced on. On the specs. But ain't it worth waiting until you've actually seen how it works, and the photos it produces, before praising it to the skies?

THey've already made one mistake by failing to ensure it's compatible with M and LTM lenses, so it looks like they don't understand one crucial part of rangefinder photography, for a start. Straight away it means you have to accept most of the bulk of an SLR camera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2010   #5
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,653
We will have to wait for the new sleek Samsung NX M.
The M is for the built in M mount.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2010   #6
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul T. View Post
Ah. Do you take photos with "the specs"?

Samsung need a strong product to break into this market, and they appear to have produced on. On the specs. But ain't it worth waiting until you've actually seen how it works, and the photos it produces, before praising it to the skies?

THey've already made one mistake by failing to ensure it's compatible with M and LTM lenses, so it looks like they don't understand one crucial part of rangefinder photography, for a start. Straight away it means you have to accept most of the bulk of an SLR camera.
It's rumored to use the same APS-C sensor as the Pentax K-7 or as good as any other sensor Samsung produces for other cameras makers. Its results will be on par with mid-range DSLRs. Enough sample images have been posted about, such as here: http://www.dpreview.com/news/1001/10...x10gallery.asp
It will take as competent pics as any DSLR over the last 5 years. Nothing especially better, not especially worse out of the camera. That's not what it's about. It's about a manufacturer finally taking its thumb out of its mouth and building the first "digital era's rangefinder". That is, a camera that gives me everything a rangefinder but not married to legacy technologies, and one that made a pure photographic tool instead of making "cute" cameras like the 4/3rds but with all kinds of concessions as a photographic tool for the sake of cuteness. Samsung - nor any other manufaturer, need not make the kluge adapters for the handful of Leica users who insist on slapping their lenses on whatever camera. Out of the gate, just one or two decent fast primes is all that's needed. Again, this is the first digital era rangefinder that is built as a photographic tool that lets you shoot "rangefinder style" - and to do that they needed to have the guts to produce a new lens mount... took guts. It's a digital Yashica GSN or Olympus RD, or Oly 35, that allows you to shoot as such. It's latent image capabilities will be as good as the others. Its form factor with its fast fixed lens and larger "film plane" will "free" the photographer to achieve rangefinder-style photographic results. It's not about its latent technology, no breakthroughs there.

Last edited by NickTrop : 02-24-2010 at 15:14.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2010   #7
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,855
Fast primes - don't even need to be in pancake form, but as compact as possible:

16mm f2-f2.8 (24mm equiv)

22mm f1.8-f2 (35mm equiv)

55mm f1.4-f1.8 (85mm equiv)

The first company to make that sort of lens system with EVF will get my all my money. I don't want ****ty extendable zoom lenses, I don't want ****ty f4 or f5.6 lenses, I don't want a 14-150mm piece of junk.

Fast primes are the defining point of such a camera.
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2010   #8
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,855
Oh, and I find the body design of the nx10 really ugly. of course if they went on to release some fantastic primes that wouldn't stop me buying it, but I really wish it was prettier to look at.
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2010   #9
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
 
Jamie Pillers's Avatar
 
Jamie Pillers is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 3,756
Novoflex has announced they are building adapters to mount Nikon F, Canon, Minolta, Leica R, OM, Pentax K, and other lenses on the NX. I'm really exited about this move by Samsung to the APS-C sensor size! Nick I agree that the micro 4/3 idea is just a 'half-step' to what I've been waiting for. The NX 'concept' IS what I've been waiting for. Now let's see what the camera can do.... can't wait for the tests/reviews to be completed! :-)
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2010   #10
Matus
Registered User
 
Matus's Avatar
 
Matus is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Frankfurt, DE
Posts: 1,843
I just had a look at the sample shots from dpreview and must say that noise is more than should be, but it was only a beta version of the camera. I am really interested to see a review - dcresource may bring us one in a month or two.

I agree with Galvin on the lenses - I would like to see even wider ones (21 and 15 equivalent)
__________________
________
Matus
... Flickr galleries: New Zealand , Spain
... per camera: Olympus XA , Jupiter J3 , Rolleiflex T, Mamiya 6, Ricoh GRDIII shots
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2010   #11
pvdhaar
Zoom with your feet!
 
pvdhaar's Avatar
 
pvdhaar is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,104
Form factor.. It's unnecessarily shaped like an SLR. While it may be a tad smaller than other DSLRs available, that's not really differentiation enough to win me over. It still has that lump on top where real reflexes have their prism housing. Doesn't make sense to me..

I'd say: shave off that lump, move the finder from the middle to the very left hand side, give it 1:1 magnification allowing framing and shooting with both eyes open..
__________________
Kind regards,

Peter

My Hexländer Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2010   #12
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvdhaar View Post
Form factor.. It's unnecessarily shaped like an SLR. While it may be a tad smaller than other DSLRs available, that's not really differentiation enough to win me over. It still has that lump on top where real reflexes have their prism housing. Doesn't make sense to me..

I'd say: shave off that lump, move the finder from the middle to the very left hand side, give it 1:1 magnification allowing framing and shooting with both eyes open..
Absolutely.

It might have an APS-C sensor, but it's not a hell of a lot smaller than the equivalent Pentax SLR. There are sacrifices involved in moving to an electronic VF, and the trade-off should be that the camera should be more compact, which this one ain't - and nor are the lenses.

It is a very promising first step, but I think they still need to make the leap that Panasonic did, from the G1 to the GF1.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2010   #13
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,855
Yes.


This is what it should look like (seriously). But smaller thanks to having no mirror.


There's no reason for it to look like a mini SLR
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2010   #14
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,672
The size of the camera to me is not objectionable. The smallest DSLR currently out there - the Olys, I've seen in camera stores. They're small cameras imo. "Small" enough. The size of the camera itself is not an issue - but when you slap a big azz zoom on it that "takes over" and you're, once again, jabbing people in the face with this giant (slow) zoom jutting out of the front of the camera. Plus, they're DSLRs married to legacy technology. The pancake prime is what makes the camera unobtrusive. It's slightly smaller than the smallest DSLR out there, it's bigger that the 4/3's. To complain about this camera's size is akin to complaining that a 4/3's camera is bigger than the point-n-shoot digitals. Of course it is! It's not a "point and shoot" and you made size concessions over point and shoots for the better photo quality of the 4/3-rd's models. My argument is the same for the Samsung. I'll make a reasonable size concession to have a full APS-C sized CMOS sensor in the camera for the better results over the 4/3rd's, which are glorified point and shoots to me. (Though they are admittedly "pretty" cameras...) My criteria for size is "is it small enough to be unobtrusive?". It is - with the pancake lens. I own film cameras that are too small to me, a minor point, but I preferred the size of the larger Yash Electro to the Konica Auto S3 as an example. Both are "compact" rangefinders. If I want to go "pocketable" I'll take a different camera with me (fuji Finepix F20, or I'll pick up that XA I've always been tempted to buy) but I'll be sacrificing capability. The NX10 a small, but not "pocketable" camera. No offense to those (above) who quibble with the size but there most definately is a reason for the camera's size - physics! I'm sure that this is the smallest camera the Samsung engineers could design that still has an EVF and built in flash (that I could have done without but is far from a deal breaker...), which an APS-C sensor (not a smaller and therefore inferior 4/3'rds sensor) that didn't make consessions as a photographic tool in order to win the "who can make the smallest interchangeable lens camera contest..." As far as high ISO noise, it won't be best of class, it won't be worst of class. My expectation is it will perform no better or worse than any other DSLR out there - which is actually pretty darned good. Noise is an overrated problem. Yes, straight out of the camera blown up 100 or more percent it's ugly and obtrusive except for a handful of full frame models that are usueall hugh and expensive cameras that I'll never own. It's really a problem for pixel peepers, mainly. However, imo, noise is far less an issue on smaller "real world" print sizes viewed from a normal viewing distance, and it becomes even less of an issue if you use good noise reduction software, esp. if you convert to black and white. I actually hope Samsung does less in-camera noise reduction and leaves that up to the user to do in post so I can control the "noise vs detail" equation and not leave that up to the firmware. As far as available lenses - as I said, I'm perfectly happy with one decent (doesn't have to be "Leica" quality... just "decent" - which I'm sure it will be...) fast lens in the normal focal length range - 45-55 in 35mm, which it has. I use this focal lenght 95% of the time. As for the "ugliness" of the camera - all I can say is that's subjective and "puleeeze". Since when did camera "cuteness" matter at the end of the day for anything?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2010   #15
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,801
Of course form factor matters. Just like paragraph breaks.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2010   #16
mabelsound
Registered User
 
mabelsound's Avatar
 
mabelsound is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Age: 46
Posts: 6,027
Nick, I agree, this looks like a perfectly good camera, but why do you have to say how much m4/3 sucks every time you post about it? It's not a war. Most of us are gonna prefer m4/3 because it's more pocketable and rangefindery (the GF1 w/20mm is almost identical in size to my Olympus 35RC) and will take more legacy lenses, but this does not make you some kind of persecuted minority.
__________________
flickr insta twitter
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2010   #17
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by mabelsound View Post
Nick, I agree, this looks like a perfectly good camera, but why do you have to say how much m4/3 sucks every time you post about it? It's not a war. Most of us are gonna prefer m4/3 because it's more pocketable and rangefindery (the GF1 w/20mm is almost identical in size to my Olympus 35RC) and will take more legacy lenses, but this does not make you some kind of persecuted minority.
I wouldn't buy a 4/3's camera because - to me, there is one main determining factor regarding the quality of images and that is the size of the film plane. That's true in film, it's true in digital. The 4/3rds sensors are too small. APS-C is a concession over full-frame 35, and that's the smallest I want to go if I'm spending $700, 800, $1000 for a camera. Not a lot for some, but as much as I'm willing to spend as a tool for a serious hobbyist. I view them as glorified "cool looking" point and shoot cameras that are overpriced for what they do and make too many concessions as a photographic tool because they got it backwards regarding form following function. If that places me in the minority - so be it.

As for "paragraph breaks" - he who points out grammar and typos on blog posts loses the race automatically. - analogous to illegally switching lanes during speed skating competitions.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2010   #18
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,801
Ha, sorry, but para breaks might help you make or prove your point.

WE're getting into a circular argument here, but I can't help thinking you defeat your own point by banging on about 4/3rds being glorified compacts when you haven't even used one - and when there's a far bigger difference in sensor size between compact and 4/3, than there is between 4/3 and APS-C.


You might draw an arbitrary line there, but there's no reason anyone else should.

Again, I agree the Samsung is a great addition to the market, but at the moment, without actually trying one out, it's just pie in the sky. You argue it's the best pie in the sky, because it fulfils some arbitrary size criteria for you, but reality might not live up to your fantasy.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2010   #19
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
I wouldn't buy a 4/3's camera because - to me, there is one main determining factor regarding the quality of images and that is the size of the film plane. That's true in film, it's true in digital. The 4/3rds sensors are too small. APS-C is a concession over full-frame 35, and that's the smallest I want to go if I'm spending $700, 800, $1000 for a camera. Not a lot for some, but as much as I'm willing to spend as a tool for a serious hobbyist. I view them as glorified "cool looking" point and shoot cameras that are overpriced for what they do and make too many concessions as a photographic tool because they got it backwards regarding form following function. If that places me in the minority - so be it.


Yeah, it's heaps smaller than an aps-c sensor

In all seriousness, have you ever shot with a camera with a 4/3 sensor before? They're pretty good... Not as good as a full frame nikon or canon but about equal to aps-c dslrs. I feel my e-p1 really holds its own in outright image quality.

In the same light - have you ever shot with a pentax k7? They use the same 14.6mp samsung sensor in the nx10. Now I loved the k7 body and I love pentax limited lenses, but that sensor I didn't particularly like. For one, it gets noisy quickly, and it's color sensitivity is strange (to my eyes). It's very sensitive to blues and greens to the point of oversaturation.
By contrast 4/3 sensors are very neutral and produce very nice colors straight from the cam.
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange

Last edited by gavinlg : 02-25-2010 at 04:20.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2010   #20
Matus
Registered User
 
Matus's Avatar
 
Matus is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Frankfurt, DE
Posts: 1,843
Truth to be told, I would rather see the D90 or 7D sensor in the NX10 than the K7 sensor ....

Also - the shape of the viewfinder - is probably dictated by the way the flash is implemented (could indeed be moved to side). I am wondering whether larger viewfinder would have implications on the size of the camera though ...
__________________
________
Matus
... Flickr galleries: New Zealand , Spain
... per camera: Olympus XA , Jupiter J3 , Rolleiflex T, Mamiya 6, Ricoh GRDIII shots
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2010   #21
mabelsound
Registered User
 
mabelsound's Avatar
 
mabelsound is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Age: 46
Posts: 6,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
I wouldn't buy a 4/3's camera because - to me, there is one main determining factor regarding the quality of images and that is the size of the film plane. That's true in film, it's true in digital. The 4/3rds sensors are too small. APS-C is a concession over full-frame 35, and that's the smallest I want to go if I'm spending $700, 800, $1000 for a camera. Not a lot for some, but as much as I'm willing to spend as a tool for a serious hobbyist. I view them as glorified "cool looking" point and shoot cameras that are overpriced for what they do and make too many concessions as a photographic tool because they got it backwards regarding form following function. If that places me in the minority - so be it.

As for "paragraph breaks" - he who points out grammar and typos on blog posts loses the race automatically. - analogous to illegally switching lanes during speed skating competitions.
You're missing my point. I'm NOT arguing with you about the relative strengths of the two camera systems. I honestly don't care about that. They are both fine. It's just that every time you say something positive about one, you put down the other. It's like you're going out of your way to piss people off. IT DOESN'T MATTER if one of them is better. Go get an NX10, take good photos, post them here, talk about why you like the camera. You are not at war with the people who chose to adopt a different one. It's perfectly reasonable to say that one camera might be better for certain applications than another, but I don't understand this sense that you feel personally offended by the camera system you don't support, or by other people's positive opinion of it.

And I am not the guy who complained about the paragraph breaks.
__________________
flickr insta twitter
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2010   #22
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,672
It is a circular argument. But when making decisions, you "draw a line in the sand" somewhere and that line is a "logically-based" arbitrary one. I'm sure the 4/3-rds cameras take fine images. My little Fuji Finepix F20 takes acceptable images but is not capable of selective focus. Without going through a lot of trouble, I'd say you lose a stop or so of selective focus capability due to the size difference between 4/3rds and APS-C? Other 4/3 users have posted about this. I'm already losing some capability here between 35mm and APS-C. The 4/3 have a 2X crop factor, the APS-C has 1.5, a significant difference when measured as a percentage. As far as the trying the camera, etc... Again, I'm not all that wonky about the subtle differences here which are largely subjective. Here are some quotes from a Luminious Landscape article about the Pentax K-7 regarding picture quality which is directly related to its sensor (and firmware):

"Image quality is fine, but not exceptional, and maybe a bit noisier than some...looking at resolution and high ISO capability, the K7 stood firmly in the middle of the pack."
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...k7-hands.shtml

This meets my expectations. "Fine" is "fine". My expectation is it will produce images as good as any other DSLR, that is, very good. As far as shoot a 4/3rds, don't have to. Again, I don't need to shoot these things - I'm sure the images are fine, they just make too many compromises to me and have crossed that arbitrary line. And, the only truly pockable camera - film or digital, to me have collapsable lenses and a form factor small enogh to put in your pocket, comfortably (not all jammed in there... or wearing pant with giant pocket to accomidate it...) Larger than that, and without collapsible lenses, it's not to me "pocketable". Both 4/3 and the NX with a pancake lens fall under the category of "compact" but one is equivalent to, say, a Yashica CC and the other a Konica Auto S3.

Last edited by NickTrop : 02-25-2010 at 05:10.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2010   #23
Matus
Registered User
 
Matus's Avatar
 
Matus is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Frankfurt, DE
Posts: 1,843
The discussion of 4/3 versus APS-C (or DX) reminds me very much the discussions about 6x7 versus 645.

There is a substantial step area wise between 35mm (FX) and APS-C (DX) this shows in the high ISO sensitivity and in the ability to use the selective focus. If you play a bit with some of the DOF calculators on the web, you will find out that for every 1.44 conversion factor (for the effective focal length) you "gain" 1 stop of the DOF for the same subject. In other words a shot taken with FX camera and 50mm lens @ f/2.8 will have nearly the same DOF as APS-C camera with 33mm lens @ f/2.0, because the conversion factor of 1.5 is close to 1.44.

going down to 4/3 cameras - you "gain" 2 stops as the focal length conversion factor is 2 (2 = 1.44*1.44) so to get the same DOF as above a lens 25/1.4 will be needed.

Of course the limiting f/stop (when the diffraction kicks in) will be for every format different - as the smaller the format the bigger the scaling factor to get the same sized print.

I hope this makes sense.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg formats2.jpg (40.9 KB, 32 views)
__________________
________
Matus
... Flickr galleries: New Zealand , Spain
... per camera: Olympus XA , Jupiter J3 , Rolleiflex T, Mamiya 6, Ricoh GRDIII shots
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2010   #24
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matus View Post
The discussion of 4/3 versus APS-C (or DX) reminds me very much the discussions about 6x7 versus 645.

There is a substantial step area wise between 35mm (FX) and APS-C (DX) this shows in the high ISO sensitivity and in the ability to use the selective focus. If you play a bit with some of the DOF calculators on the web, you will find out that for every 1.44 conversion factor (for the effective focal length) you "gain" 1 stop of the DOF for the same subject. In other words a shot taken with FX camera and 50mm lens @ f/2.8 will have nearly the same DOF as APS-C camera with 33mm lens @ f/2.0, because the conversion factor of 1.5 is close to 1.44.

going down to 4/3 cameras - you "gain" 2 stops as the focal length conversion factor is 2 (2 = 1.44*1.44) so to get the same DOF as above a lens 25/1.4 will be needed.

Of course the limiting f/stop (when the diffraction kicks in) will be for every format different - as the smaller the format the bigger the scaling factor to get the same sized print.

I hope this makes sense.
It makes perfect sense and thanks for doing the leg work. And that's "the line". "50mm lens @ f/2.8 will have nearly the same DOF as APS-C camera with 33mm lens @ f/2.0." It's a concession - a somewhat large one but one I can live with: F2 = F2.8; F2.8 = F4; 30mm = 45mm. "4/3 cameras...to get the same DOF as above a lens 25/1.4 will be needed"... Close but no cigar, it crosses that line. Thanks again.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2010   #25
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,855
I don't really care that much, but just playing the devils advocate here - my 5d with the voigtlander 40mm f2 will give significantly better IQ than any of these cameras, and really isn't that much bigger. None of them can actually fit into a pocket like an olympus XA. This is the main problem I have with my e-p1. Anytime I need that kind of quality I may as well be using my 5d with a small prime.

Either way, the samsung does look nice.
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2010   #26
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,824
And while y'all "discussing" the technical merits of small and smaller sensors, these folks on this website are busy taking darn good pictures:

http://www.myfourthirds.com

__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2010   #27
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowfox View Post
And while y'all "discussing" the technical merits of small and smaller sensors, these folks on this website are busy taking darn good pictures:

http://www.myfourthirds.com

Yes... however, the purpose of a forum is to "discuss" (don't take that as a snark - it isn't). You can take fine pix with any camera, 4/3rds no exception. But technical merits do matter when investing in a kit that will wind up costing a grand when all is said and done. Hence the discussion. Regarding selective focus/IQ, an APS-C sensor is as small as I'm willing to begrudgingly go regarding film plane size. The film plane size effects things that matter to me with respect to photography. This is also true regarding framing using a viewfinder.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2010   #28
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 7,177
Will we see a full frame sensor, and AF compatablilty with older lenses?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2010   #29
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
 
Kevin's Avatar
 
Kevin is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 990
Of course. Canon will be the first to make a full-frame EVIL camera with new lenses and adapters for both its FD and EF lens lines.

My prediction is that it will be announced this year or next.
__________________
Canonet QL17+QL19 Casio EX-P700 Contax G2+645AF Epson R-D1 Fuji GSW690+Natura Konica Hexar AF Leica M6+CM+Minilux Minolta CLE Mamiya 6+RZ67 Olympus E-410 Nikon D70 Sigma DP1 Voigtländer Bessa II Yashica Electro GSN

Leica 35mm 1.4 Summilux Aspherical + ASPH, 90mm 2.8 Tele-Elmarit VC 15mm 4.5 Heliar Asph, 28mm 1.9 Ultron Asph, 35mm 1.2 Nokton Asph, 40mm 1.4 Nokton SC, 50mm Nokton 1.5 Asph, 75mm 2.5 Heliar Contax G2 28mm 2.8 Biogon, 45mm 2.0 Planar, 90mm 2.8 Sonnar Minolta 40mm 2.0 Rokkor
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-22-2011   #30
j j
Registered User
 
j j is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 797
Just so you have something different to read when poll activities bring this to the top again, I'm looking forward to Samsung's 16mm, 60mm (macro) and 85 primes. If they are as good as the 30mm, this will be a nice little high-quality system. And this week they did the marvelous thing of updating previous models to current new spec through a firmware update. I wish more companies would do that.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2011   #31
kshapero
Rangefinder Finder
 
kshapero's Avatar
 
kshapero is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida, USA
Age: 66
Posts: 9,213
What ever happened to the NX11 series?
__________________
Akiva S.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kshapero

Yes I have 2 Rangefinders.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2012   #32
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavinlg View Post
In all seriousness, have you ever shot with a camera with a 4/3 sensor before? They're pretty good... Not as good as a full frame nikon or canon but about equal to aps-c dslrs.
Perhaps in bright light, but not in dim light.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 16:11.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.