Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Digital Cameras > Micro 4/3 Cameras Olympus Panasonic

Micro 4/3 Cameras Olympus Panasonic This forum is for all Micro 4/3 cameras of any camera make.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 04-28-2012   #81
cosmonaut
Registered User
 
cosmonaut's Avatar
 
cosmonaut is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 1,208
It's not the sensor size that's the problem with m4/3rd an Olympus E5 could work for sports. It's performace. The E-M5 maybe the game changer.
But I doubt Canon and Nikon are worried they will lose a share of the Pro market because of the E-M5
__________________
Cosmo
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-28-2012   #82
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
Are you saying it's physically impossible to implement backside illumination as sensor size increases?

If you can't buy it, then it's because the vendors are stupid... or maybe the cost:benefit ratio decreases as sensor size increases because of the larger sensor's inherent advantage.

But it dosn't matter. A backside large surface area sensor will collects more data than a backside sensor with a smaller surface area.
1. A BSI sensor does not collect "more data." It simply has higher quantum efficiency. Not the same thing. There are technical challenges in making large BSI sensors. For what it's worth, I'm about to buy a second monochrome BSI-EMCCD camera for my laboratory. The chip is 5mm x 5mm, 512x512 pixels (0.25 Mpix). That will be $30,000 for the bare sensor in a box with a Peltier device to cool it to -80 C and a minimal interface. >90% quantum efficiency and capable of operating in single photon counting mode. It will not collect "more data." What it will do is give high SNR under highly specialized conditions. The point being that different sensors are optimized for different applications.

2. If the sensor it is not available, it does not collect any data at all. 24x36mm BSI sensors are not currently available. Such things might be available if you are a military contractor.

3. Cell phone sensors are currently at least two full technology generations ahead of FF camera sensors. Expect that gap to widen, not shrink.

4. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the vendors being "stupid." It has everything to do with cost efficiencies of manufacturing and cost-benefit tradeoffs.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2012   #83
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyjoe View Post
You will also never get the equivalent DOF with a m4/3 sensor that you can get with a full frame (36mm x 24mm) sensor. That's my main reason for shooting FF.

Best,
-Tim
And my main reason for shooting LF.
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55 and adapted Zuikos
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2012   #84
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Knoxville, TN USA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,340
The debate around full frame is the same as when tech pan came out. Yes it was sharp but it didn't have the same tonality and gradation as larger formats. Ok 4/3 and APSC are sharp and look great but they aren't as smooth in tonality as larger full frame sensor cameras. The same is true of FF vs MF digital. Sensor size does make a difference. Each time you increase the sensor size it equates to increasing film size. Tonality gets smoother and sharpness is still there and more and more subtle tones and gradations emerge. There's also a totally different presence, feel to the images from a large sensor.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2012   #85
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,733
Those are mildly interesting assertions. They would be vastly more interesting if backed up by careful comparisons of well-made prints from files shot side-by-side under well-controlled conditions.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2012   #86
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,255
Carefully controlled tests are useless. I could say the same thing about 35mm film vs medium format or larger. I spent part of yesterday afternoon in the presence of nine Magnum greats, many of whom shoot film/35mm ... Larry Towell, Bruce Gilden, etc. I don't disdain or reject their work because it's made on "miniature" film. Some of the others (Webb, Soth, Wylie) shoot digital either exclusively or as well as film. I like their work, too.
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55 and adapted Zuikos
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2012   #87
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,733
Carefully controlled tests can be extremely useful. It depends what you want to know.

But as you suggest, "image quality" is not necessarily a prerequisite for quality images.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2012   #88
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKR View Post
Ctein has tested almost every popular pro camera image file. He also is up on MFT as he uses one for much of his work. Of the 4 or 5 world class Dye Transfer printers in the US, he was at or near the top. Any questions I have about image file quality are directed to Ctein.
Exactamundo. I have a few of Ctein's prints (including a couple of DT's), and the new one — taken with MFT and printed for the specific purpose of showing what's possible with MFT — is on the way.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2012   #89
ktran
Registered User
 
ktran is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmonaut View Post
My E-M5 is not here yet but have the NEX7. I tried to shoot my daughters soccer games with it and yes it can be done. But the battery died half way thru the game and nailing shots was a PITA. My a77 and a850 blew it off the planet. Just with the CZ glass I have. If I can't shoot a 7 year olds soccer game in day time light a high school football or basketball game in darker light would be a joke.
I am sure there are pros that can make anything work. If a pros only system is a mirrorless camera he or she is going to be handicapped in many situations where if a good DSLR would serve them with everything they do. There is a NASCAR race on tonight at Richmond. Flip it on and look behind pit wall and count how many m4/3rd cameras you see and call me back.
I don't know if this is normal, but I shot a half-marathon today with an E-PL2, brought three batteries, and only depleted one of them... after about 1500+ shots. Mind you, these were JPG normal (as per the assignment requirements: we were trying to get as many shots of as many of the thousands of participants as possible), shot in continuous mode. I turned off the camera between bursts and position changes along the route (it's as fast as or faster to start up cold than from "powersave mode"). The CIPA rating for the E-PL2 is 290 shots per charge. Obviously my experience is not typical. I wonder if it's because of how I went about it, plus maybe the fact that I had the IS turned off (when you're shooting wide angle lenses right into the runners' faces at 1/1000s, you don't need no stinkin' IS).

Anyhow, I'm just saying that there may be ways to get around your battery life issue. Certainly, you won't match the battery life of a DSLR due to design philosophy, but I think you can get through a soccer match (I've shot those too).

And as for your earlier post re: the Pentax pancake lenses: please remember that those have to mount on a camera with a much larger lens-to-sensor distance than the m4/3 cameras. I'm not certain the Pentax K01 with that lens is any slimmer than a PEN E-PM1 with the 17mm pancake.
__________________
Flickr page
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2012   #90
jarski
Registered User
 
jarski is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,179
wonder where "legacy" suddenly appeared to describe lenses used on full frame sensor bodies. I doubt many pro stick 40 year old Nikkor to his/her D4 when going to assignment. of course he/she could, and use the lens as it was meant to be. which is the best part

edit, btw. Dpreview has nice tool called Studio Shot Comparison. its possible to pixel peep 100% crops and compare side-by-side latest cameras. scene is well light, which (IMHO) gives little leeway for smaller sensors regarding light shifts and how details in shadows are recorded. anyway good source of information for judging by self, than believe some biased blogger/net commentator.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2012   #91
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by semilog View Post
Carefully controlled tests can be extremely useful. It depends what you want to know.

But as you suggest, "image quality" is not necessarily a prerequisite for quality images.
Well, in the context of this thread, they are not very useful.

And yes, "image quality" and "quality image" are two very different things, which gets confused almost every minute on every photo forum past, present, future.
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55 and adapted Zuikos
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

It's All About Surface Area (rignt now anyway)
Old 04-30-2012   #92
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,009
It's All About Surface Area (rignt now anyway)

Quote:
Originally Posted by semilog View Post

......
1. A BSI sensor does not collect "more data." It simply has higher quantum efficiency. Not the same thing. There are technical challenges in making large BSI sensors. For what it's worth, I'm about to buy a second monochrome BSI-EMCCD camera for my laboratory. The chip is 5mm x 5mm, 512x512 pixels (0.25 Mpix). That will be $30,000 for the bare sensor in a box with a Peltier device to cool it to -80 C and a minimal interface. >90% quantum efficiency and capable of operating in single photon counting mode. It will not collect "more data." What it will do is give high SNR under highly specialized conditions. The point being that different sensors are optimized for different applications.

.......

3. Cell phone sensors are currently at least two full technology generations ahead of FF camera sensors. Expect that gap to widen, not shrink.
Thanks for catching my imprecise use of the word data.

I should have said: as the sensor area increases the information content of the photograph increases.

Data = Signal + Noise

The signal is what we want. It represents a state of nature, or the actual but unknown flow of electrons from each sesnor site. The signal electron flow is proportional to number of photons captured by the sesnor.

The noise is responsible for uncertainty in the data. The are two main sources: quantum noise and read noise (noise floor). One is an inherent property of matter and the other is generated by the camera's electronics.

Quantum efficiency is important. However QE alone is meaningless. If the read noise is high, QE is compromised. The storage capacity of a sensor site is called the saturation capacity. QE is compromised if the electron flow is not proportional to the photons captured by the sensor. This lower the saturation capacity, the less important QE becomes.

Large sensor areas increase the signal level. An increase in sensor area does not necessarily increase read noise. The data from an APS-C sensor has less uncertainty than data from a m4/3 sensor because there is more signal.

There is not more data, but there is more information in the data.

The site

http://www.sensorgen.info/

computes QE, minimum read noise, and maximum saturation capacity for dozens of digital cameras. I have reproduced a few of their results below.

Camera QE Read Noise Saturation Capacity

Pen_E-P3 41% 8.1 17791
Pen_E-PL1 42% 11.2 17424
XZ-1 35% 2.6 6498

DMC-G1 33% 5.9 14346
DMC-GH1 50% 4.2 18662
DMC_G3 45% 2.9 13612
DMC_GH2 43% 3.0 11803
DMC_GX1 44% 2.7 12554

D700 38% 5.3 58111
D7000 48% 2.5 49058

Because efficient exposure maximizes saturation capacity and has no effect on the read noise, the signal (electron flow) is larger for sesnors with more area. The data from a well-designed APS-C camera contains more information than the data from a well-designed m4/3 camera.

I apologize for such a nerdy post. However at this point in digital photography sensor area is important. I don't understand why m4/3 proponents can't just admit they prefer the increase in convenience instead of more information content. After all, for many photographs the reduction in information content has negligible impact on image quality. We all know the image quality if just one factor in the aesthetics of the final image.



Also, who cares about cell phone sensors? The OP suggested people whose livelihood depends, to some extent, on image quality are missing the boat by ignoring m4/3 cameras. I disagreed because convenience does not trump information content for many working photographers.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

williamchuttonjr.com, FLICKR,
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2012   #93
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
QE is compromised if the electron flow is not proportional to the photons captured by the sensor.
That is not generally an issue. CCD and CMOS sensors are highly linear devices. The bigger issue is that too few photoelectrons accumulate under low-light conditions, limiting the SNR to ≤ sqrt[# of events accumulated]. Higher QE allows detection of more events per photosite.

Quote:
This lower the saturation capacity, the less important QE becomes.
That simply is not so.

Better quantum efficiency is always desirable. Cell phone sensors are using BSI to compensate for their small photosite area (typically ~1.5 m pixel spacing with a smaller photosite). BSI gives about a full stop of improvement in real applications. The camera I'm about to buy for my lab (>10 m pixel spacing) is also BSI, has >90% QE, a full-well capacity >100,000 e-, and read noise of <1e-. That's 10-year-old tech, by the way, and the most recent cameras are not meaningfully better.

If it were economically feasible, all sensors would be BSI. Even 4/3 BSI sensors are still too hard to manufacture and too expensive to put in consumer devices.

Quote:
Large sensor areas increase the signal level. An increase in sensor area does not necessarily increase read noise.
All else being equal, yes. But all else is seldom equal, which is why the APS-C Pentax K-x was giving the D-700 a run for its money.

Quote:
The data from an APS-C sensor has less uncertainty than data from a m4/3 sensor because there is more signal.
Again, all else being equal. But are you talking about Nikon APS-C (1.5x crop) or Canon (1.6)?

More seriously, consider the Pentax K-x again. It used a Sony sensor that marked first appearance of many technologies used for the D-7000 and now the D-800. It absolutely crushed every other APS-C sensor on the market when it came out. The problem faced by micro 4/3 cameras has not been sensor size, which is not a lot smaller than APS-C. It's been that the Kodak and Panasonic sensors in 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras have lagged about a full generation behind what Canon — and especially Sony — were bringing to market.

The sensors in the GH2 and EM5 perform very well, suggesting that that gap is narrowing.

Quote:
Also, who cares about cell phone sensors?
Anyone who cares about digital imaging should care about cell phone sensors. They represent the state of the art in consumer devices and are where the vast majority of the R & D money is going.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2012   #94
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKR View Post
The popular cooling method involves Peltier Cooling.
Yes. The microscope camera that I alluded to above runs at -80 C.

That Sony is achieving read noises of <2 photoelectrons at room temperature is nothing short of astonishing. It's nice to know that Mr. Morita's once-unrivalled company is still good at something.

Of course, read noise is not the only noise that designers contend with. There is dark current (helped a lot by cooling) and pattern noise, too. And at small numbers of events, shot noise -- the main reason QE is so important.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2012   #95
hatidua
Registered User
 
hatidua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 69
Irrespective of all the tech-speak, why do so many people see it as their calling in life to convince others of the virtues of the 4/3 cameras? (or FF sensors, or medium format over 35mm, Etc).

As the article seems to at least slightly be portraying a professional setting, it bears mentioning that I have yet to meet a single competent pro who needs a blog to tell him/her what gear to use in order to satisfy his/her clients needs. Nor, have any of my clients cared what I use to get the results they are paying for, they simply want the image/s. The author acts as if he was hesitant to immediately let his clients in on what tool he used for the job (as if it would matter...).

If someone wants a 4/3 camera, fantastic - go buy one. They are not appropriate for the needs of some and no amount of blogging on their merits is going to change that.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2012   #96
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatidua View Post
Irrespective of all the tech-speak, why do so many people see it as their calling in life to convince others of the virtues of the 4/3 cameras? (or FF sensors, or medium format over 35mm, Etc).
People like to argue. It can be fun and it can be a good way to test your own ideas and knowledge, and learn things.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2012   #97
jarski
Registered User
 
jarski is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,179
finished browsing the DP's review of the OM-D. conclusion seemed to be that its still an enthusiast camera, and very good one at that, but not pro. no doubt pro's too find many uses for it in their toolkit as well.

"Overall score 80%
The Olympus OM-D E-M5 is certainly the most capable Micro Four Thirds cameras we've reviewed and arguably the most likeable mirrorless model yet. It falls down a little bit on its continuous focusing but we have no absolutely no complaints about the image quality. It's small, attractive and a pleasure to use, and its pictures are equally enjoyable."
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2012   #98
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
 
dreilly's Avatar
 
dreilly is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Finger Lakes Region of New York State
Posts: 1,026
The only camera I ever used that had a truly workable continuous AF was the Nikon D300/D700...the 3d focus tracking was something else. On any other camera is was worthless or near it, so I can't hold this against the OM-D, and I think DPreview says as much in the review. What's missing from this being the "pro" Pen Olympus talked about? Maybe only that it's an OM-D and not a Pen.
__________________
-D is for Doug

http://www.flickr.com/photos/xenar/collections/

No place is boring, if you've had a good night's sleep and have a pocket full of unexposed film. ~Robert Adams, Darkroom & Creative Camera Techniques, May 1995 (I suppose that should now read: "and have a full battery and an empty memory card." Though that sounds so dull.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2012   #99
cosmonaut
Registered User
 
cosmonaut's Avatar
 
cosmonaut is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 1,208
Well like I said Olympus camera sensor DXO marks haven't made any improvement in years. Olympus thins the AA filter and puts a new engine in it for better IQ. This is smoke and mirrors. Other companies are improving on their sensors with every upgrade. Olympus puts out to many models to quickly. They need to slow down and put some R&D into their cameras.
Olympus faithful look as the next camera as the one that will put them in the game only to be let down in the long run. I really wonder has Olympus squeezed as much out of their sensor as they can. From what I am reading this one may be no different than the others. I hope I am wrong.
The EVF of the NEX 7 has twice the resolution of the Olympus EFV and the NEX 7 has been out awhile and was delayed in release as it were. Olympus may never catch up.
__________________
Cosmo
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2012   #100
aeturnum
Registered User
 
aeturnum is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 158
I think m4/3 is a viable platform for almost all photographic purposes, but then so is the iPhone. We've long since left behind the times when technology was really insufficient to do what most people want to do.

What matters more is the interface between the user and the sensor. Some people find it easier to take good pictures using an optical viewfinder, some people love electronic viewfinders. Do you want a lot of physical controls? How big should the camera be? How do you want to focus?

Professional photographers could use a m3/4 camera, but they probably won't because their current gear works fine. There's nothing wrong with the m4/3 platform, but there's nothing particularly right about it either.

P.s. The philosophy behind writing a piece like this seems a little silly. You're just trying to convince avowed gear-purists that they should expand their dogma to include another format. It's like trying to convince a catholic each individual protestant denomination is Christian, as opposed to "protestants" as a whole.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2012   #101
hteasley
Pupil
 
hteasley is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,725
The argument "even small sensor equipment can produce good photos" isn't a particularly interesting one. Of course it can.

But to leap from that to saying, "small sensor equipment can produce any photo that a full-frame camera can produce," which is the logical basis for saying, "you don't need FF anymore," is just silly. There are images that a FF camera can make that a small sensor camera cannot (shallower DoF images for a given FoV). So, if you want to make images that only FF cameras can make, you need a FF camera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2012   #102
jarski
Registered User
 
jarski is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by aeturnum View Post
P.s. The philosophy behind writing a piece like this seems a little silly. You're just trying to convince avowed gear-purists that they should expand their dogma to include another format. It's like trying to convince a catholic each individual protestant denomination is Christian, as opposed to "protestants" as a whole.
word "evangelism" came to my mind earlier to describe whats happening here.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2012   #103
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
 
dreilly's Avatar
 
dreilly is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Finger Lakes Region of New York State
Posts: 1,026
It's this way.
It's not this way.
That way is better. This way can never be that way.
If you want that way, you can't choose this way.
This way is as good as that way.
This way can never replace that way.
There is no way.
There is only way.
Only trolls write about that way when we're clearly talking about this way.
Only trolls write about this way when we all know that way is better, so shut up already.
It's wrong to suggest anything other than this way is the only way.
It's wrong to suggest anything, especially this way, can replace that way.
Those who believe in this way really shouldn't blog about it.
This is the place to talk about this way, not that way. Take your that way over there, why would you even bring it up?
Are you so self-conscious that you even need to write about this way publicly?
Don't you know that the X-1 Pro blows this way and that way out of the water?
It's not the way that matters it's the person going down it.
__________________
-D is for Doug

http://www.flickr.com/photos/xenar/collections/

No place is boring, if you've had a good night's sleep and have a pocket full of unexposed film. ~Robert Adams, Darkroom & Creative Camera Techniques, May 1995 (I suppose that should now read: "and have a full battery and an empty memory card." Though that sounds so dull.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2012   #104
Thardy
Registered User
 
Thardy is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,172
As they say at Pimlico, the only thing worse than beating a dead horse is betting on one.
__________________
Thomas

Flickr

Tumblr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2012   #105
cosmonaut
Registered User
 
cosmonaut's Avatar
 
cosmonaut is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 1,208
Well I really like the E-M5 and have one ordered. It is what it is and will more than be good for what I want it for. DPRs review is very good.
__________________
Cosmo
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2012   #106
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
 
dreilly's Avatar
 
dreilly is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Finger Lakes Region of New York State
Posts: 1,026
Panasonic is superior in some ways to Olympus...fast primes they are ahead in and a better ultrawide, but one thing i could never get used to is the Panny jpeg engine...that's really an Oly strong suit. Not to start yet another RAW/JPEG thread (yikes) but Oly's engine is so good that I rarely had cause to use RAW; I couldn't get better results using ACR. That keeps me on the Oly side of things. I've compared it to every JPEG engine around--Pentax, Ricoh, Nikon, Canon, Sony and Panny's, and Oly does it best. Even DPreview says that they can hardly get more detail from the RAW then Oly's engine does. Saves me a lot of PP time.

Yeah yeah yeah, losing data and less choices, I shot with slide film and never had PP choices either. This is me, only me, I'm nuts, do NOT make this thread about that unless that old pull toy pro/nopro is getting salivalogged and you really want to move on to a pointless debate.

Meanwhile I look forward to saving hours on PP and making my magazine happy with the images I deliver from the E-M5. I get paid for that, too.
__________________
-D is for Doug

http://www.flickr.com/photos/xenar/collections/

No place is boring, if you've had a good night's sleep and have a pocket full of unexposed film. ~Robert Adams, Darkroom & Creative Camera Techniques, May 1995 (I suppose that should now read: "and have a full battery and an empty memory card." Though that sounds so dull.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2012   #107
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,145
The things i shoot these days, professionally are for internet. i use a point and shoot digital. Sometimes film that's scanned at higher resolution,approx 6mp.
i downsize to 640 or 800 to prevent some copying.The use of hi-speed lenses for tiny depth of field applauded on all forums is not really liked by the general public. Ask! i have learnt to really like almost everything in focus.
Full frame means 35mm, 36 x 24. End of story.
i loved half frame in 35mm using Pens. They were though unsuited to hard professional work.hopefully this has changed. The Pen system looks very attractive to this Leica user..

Last edited by leicapixie : 04-30-2012 at 15:48. Reason: spelling error
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2012   #108
cosmonaut
Registered User
 
cosmonaut's Avatar
 
cosmonaut is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 1,208
Which Sony Jpegs have you worked with? I have shot many Olympus cameras and as much as I like Olympus colors my a850 Jpegs have stunning color depth. Large prints looks creamy smooth compared to what I got out of my E5.
__________________
Cosmo
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2012   #109
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
 
dreilly's Avatar
 
dreilly is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Finger Lakes Region of New York State
Posts: 1,026
I learned with the Nex 5N that a mirrorless camera needs one of two things, preferably both: EVF and stabilization. The latter is more versatile...I find I enjoy composing and shooting off the rear LCD in many situations, but the lack of stabilization on the 5N meant more blur than I would have liked. I think any camera that is designed for off-LCD shooting needs to have stabilization. You're loosing the third leg of the human tripod shooting away from your face and I never realized how important those three contact points (both hands and face) were in stable shooting. Though the Nex 5N's teeny-tiny size probably didn't help. (I'm not bashing the 5N, it's an impressive little camera, just being honest about its deficiencies for my use.)

So for me the EVF in the E-M5 and the stabilization means the best of both worlds...I'm curious what I will favor in use.

I have an x100 and it's hard to use the EVF after using the OVF!

I've used JPEGs from the A850, A580 and Nex 5N. My rank order is Oly, Sony/Nikon, Canon/Pentax, Ricoh was the pits until I tried the M8 in JPEG, in which case everything else is like the first time I got glasses when I was a kid. Oh, that's the world sharp!
__________________
-D is for Doug

http://www.flickr.com/photos/xenar/collections/

No place is boring, if you've had a good night's sleep and have a pocket full of unexposed film. ~Robert Adams, Darkroom & Creative Camera Techniques, May 1995 (I suppose that should now read: "and have a full battery and an empty memory card." Though that sounds so dull.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-01-2012   #110
cosmonaut
Registered User
 
cosmonaut's Avatar
 
cosmonaut is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 1,208
Most of the Sony E mount lenses are optically stabilized. I agree in body is a better way. But with that none of the Pens stabilization was nearly as good to me as the 4/3rd line.
To be honest only a couple of times have I got blurry pictures with my NEX 7. I can push the ISO of the NeX high enough to get what I want and still get a good shot. High ISO shots with the Pens were never good enough, they need stabilization.
__________________
Cosmo
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-01-2012   #111
bluey
Its all about the image..
 
bluey is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 14
I think it's the camera designers who need to do the reconsidering.

Phone cameras do a pretty good job for the tiny size they are.

Given Moore's law, maybe sensors should be smaller than micro 4/3 so that lenses could be faster and longer and still portable.

So in micro 4/3, why can't I get equivalent images perspective and DOF-wise to a 35mm film camera with smaller lighter micro 4/3 lenses. Micro 4/3 12mm f1.0 (=24mm f2), 25mm f0.5 (=50mm f1), 50mm f1 (=100mm f2, and we can get one of those now, but I want a 50mm f1 macro to do the job of my Zuiko 90mm f2 macro), 100mm f1.x, etc. When the micro 4/3 lens designers figure they can make possible better images on micro 4/3 than are feasible on full frame digital cameras, they will have changed the game and photographers will vote with their feet.....
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-01-2012   #112
DominikDUK
Registered User
 
DominikDUK's Avatar
 
DominikDUK is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 929
Bluey I think that you 're right when you say that the onus lies on the camera designer and not on the photographer. The Photographer be it pro or amateur chooses/ or should choose the camera that suits his work /him best. Same goes for Motion picture work.

Dominik
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-01-2012   #113
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatidua View Post
Irrespective of all the tech-speak, why do so many people see it as their calling in life to convince others of the virtues of the 4/3 cameras? (or FF sensors, or medium format over 35mm, Etc).

As the article seems to at least slightly be portraying a professional setting, it bears mentioning that I have yet to meet a single competent pro who needs a blog to tell him/her what gear to use in order to satisfy his/her clients needs. Nor, have any of my clients cared what I use to get the results they are paying for, they simply want the image/s. The author acts as if he was hesitant to immediately let his clients in on what tool he used for the job (as if it would matter...).

If someone wants a 4/3 camera, fantastic - go buy one. They are not appropriate for the needs of some and no amount of blogging on their merits is going to change that.
It's called *a discussion*, my dear fellow.
Also known as, exchanging ideas or thoughts.

Some of you in this thread confuse that with indoctrination.

Pro or not, if you don't want to consider what people think out there, then you are closing your mind.

Of course there aren't going to be a lot of pros who proclaimed that they got an idea from a blog. But if you think that is not happening, well, you haven't been paying too much attention.
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 05-01-2012   #114
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowfox View Post
...

Of course there aren't going to be a lot of pros who proclaimed that they got an idea from a blog. But if you think that is not happening, well, you haven't been paying too much attention.
My professional work has benefited greatly by incorporating ideas, methods and techniques. I consider keeping abreast of what's happening and changing to be part of my responsibilities to my clients.

Like any information on the Internet, you must carefully evaluate if the writer really knows what they're talking about and if their point of view is relevant to your goals.

It' not "happening" yet for me.

Using 7-14 mm focal length lenses and sensors with reduced dynamic range and signal-to-noise ratios is the opposite of what I need. The focal lengths don't interest me because apparently it's difficult to produce even small lenses that perform well at the angles of view I need. The sensor performance is important because about 80% of my subjects exceed the dynamic range of my 24 x36 mm sensor.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

williamchuttonjr.com, FLICKR,
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-02-2012   #115
robert blu
quiet photographer
 
robert blu's Avatar
 
robert blu is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Italy
Age: 67
Posts: 3,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKR View Post
J'ai os...Olympus OM-D E-M5 versus Nikon D700

http://lepidi-photo.blogspot.fr/2012...sus-nikon.html
Thanks PKR for your input. I find this thread interesting both from a personal point of view (I'm looking for a small high performance digital camera ) and also from a more general point of view, how the changes in technology are accepted, better how they are view by various photographers...
robert
__________________
Remember: today is the Day !
from Ruth Bernhard recipe for a long and happy life


my quiet photographer's blog


My RFF photos and my albums on RFF
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-02-2012   #116
bluey
Its all about the image..
 
bluey is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKR View Post
Physics or ITLOPS
I don't think it's physics. The relationship between field of view, image size, f-stop is well described. It's more economics/business that determines where money is spent.

Bottom line for me - I've been waiting to find a proper replacement for my OM-4 and zuiko primes. The OM-D is the first serious candidate but has a few design compromises I'm not to sure about yet.....and the lenses I'd like are still in the works.

Last edited by Doug : 05-03-2012 at 21:14. Reason: film vs digital
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-02-2012   #117
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
My professional work has benefited greatly by incorporating ideas, methods and techniques. I consider keeping abreast of what's happening and changing to be part of my responsibilities to my clients.

Like any information on the Internet, you must carefully evaluate if the writer really knows what they're talking about and if their point of view is relevant to your goals.

It' not "happening" yet for me.

Using 7-14 mm focal length lenses and sensors with reduced dynamic range and signal-to-noise ratios is the opposite of what I need. The focal lengths don't interest me because apparently it's difficult to produce even small lenses that perform well at the angles of view I need. The sensor performance is important because about 80% of my subjects exceed the dynamic range of my 24 x36 mm sensor.
Willie,
Sometimes what you take out of a blog (or whatever form ideas are expressed in nowadays), is: "Not for me."

That's is completely okay. And it does not invalidated the notion that we learn a lot from what or how others think. Pro or not.
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 05-02-2012   #118
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKR View Post
It occured to me that after reading your post, that this thread might be a good tutorial on thread behavior. If you look at the various participants and their contribtutions; and what information some might take away from the thread vs others and the behavior (nothing out of line) commonly found on a forum from the Arpanet days on.. It makes an interesting little capsule of web -forum behavior. Of note are the OT inserts - like this one..

If the same dicussion were to happen in person, with all the players face to face sitting at a table drinking their favorite beverage, I'll bet the dynamic (as we know) would be very different.

In a forum like this, with so many different topics to choose from, and a thread like this posted under MFT - why would anyone ask why ideas about MFT are being exchanged?

Only under the cloke of anonymity is this kind of behavior seen.
PKR, it is what it is.
Internet forums do afford some measure of anonymity and it's true, that emboldens us to speak our mind.

But sometimes that can be a good thing.
For example, how many times I've said to myself "now why did I wrote THAT???"

And that gives me a chance to re-evaluate myself and discover what makes me react a certain way.

It's cheaper than paying a visit to the psychologist for sure
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 05-02-2012   #119
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,117
I've bookmarked this thread. Reading this, sipping a glass of vino at night...presto, I'm asleep. Better than any sleeping pill.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-02-2012   #120
robert blu
quiet photographer
 
robert blu's Avatar
 
robert blu is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Italy
Age: 67
Posts: 3,962
Thanks PKR for your answer. I started to use the x1 (german one!) and as consequence I appreciate the benefits of digital (in a small size camera). The 35mm is the focal lens I use most of time on my film camera, let say 70% and in this respect the x1 is ok for me. But I miss the medium-tele chance for the other 30% ! Therefore I think about an MFT camera with a 45/50 mm (90 eq) to have beside my x1.
I do not print bigger than A3 (30x42 cm or 11.69 16.54 in) and I guess the MFT sensor size could give good results...
robert
__________________
Remember: today is the Day !
from Ruth Bernhard recipe for a long and happy life


my quiet photographer's blog


My RFF photos and my albums on RFF
  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 06:17.


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.