Mirrorless cameras part 2.

Started Mar 7, 2013 | Discussions thread
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 6,100Gear list
Like?
Re: Mirrorless cameras part 2.
In reply to joejack951, Mar 9, 2013

joejack951 wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

joejack951 wrote:

No, 1:1 is 1:1 regardless of format.

Technically, sure.

Now, 1:1 on my m4/3s captures an area 17x13mm. Care to tell me how big an area 1:1 on a FF captures?

36mm x 24mm. Smaller formats get more pixels on the subject because the sensors are more pixel-dense. That's different than getting more magnification.

So you understood the results I was after, and just decided to be pedantic. Cool.

Doesn't seem to be anything really suitable. Getting bored looking so we'll have to settle for a non-weathersealed Sigma 70mm with 1:1 on FF capability. $599

This 60/2.8 $399 Canon lens has more working distance at 1:1 than the Olypmus 60/2.8 macro too: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/371176-USA/Canon_0284B002_EF_S_60mm_f_2_8_Macro.html

No it isn't. It's about the same at 90mm.

Ok, my mistake. I was reading specs for minimum focus distance. Regardless, the Canon lens offers similar performance, a faster aperture, and costs less.

Wrong again. Same price ($599 for both), Same aperture f2.8.

And for the weathersealed 12-50. This is just a cheap kit zoom, so it should be easy. We need a 16 - 70 or so.

Hmmm. Nearest lens I can find is the Canon EF-S 15-85mm. That's an improvement in focal length, but it's not weathersealed. Damn expensive too. $1000

The $380 Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 has a much faster aperture than the more expensive Olympus 12-50/3.5-6.3: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/670047-REG/Sigma_668101_17_70mm_F2_8_4_DC_Macro.html

Olympus should be ashamed asking that much money for such a slow lens.

Olympus don't ask that much money for the lens. It's a kit lens. Understand first, then criticise.

Does Olympus sell that lens for $500 or not? I didn't make up the price. And I didn't add it to your total kit cost either.

The price I used was the price for OM-D + that kit lens, as I bought it.

FYI, the Canon 15-85 is currently selling for $650 in the US. And like the Sigma, it's at least a stop faster than the Olympus kit zoom while offering more range.

17-70 doesn't go wide enough. I like around 24mm (FF).

You're really going to scratch a lens from this comparison over 1.5mm at the wide end? What if I like 105mm (FF) at the telephoto end?

Then you go buy the lens you like. We were putting something together to compare against my small kit. I like 24mm (FF) wide . I have no lenses that stop at 14mm because I don't like 28mm (FF).

If I needed a faster lens I'd take my 12-60, which is also f2.8-4 and also 24mm (FF). When I'm taking my small kit, then I take the 12-50. Versatility, remember.

That's funny. Your 12-60 is slower than the Sigma (factoring in equivalent apertures), bigger, and close to 3X the price. I could buy the Sigma 17-70 and the Canon 15-85 for the price of your 12-60.

And, if you recall, we're simply trying to match my small kit. Buying more lenses to build a bigger kit sort of ruins the point.

You know, if equivalency mattered to me, you'd have a point. I'm well aware of the compromises of choosing a small sensor.

Also, the Sigma is $550 (All my prices come from one store in Australian dollars, so there's no issue with currencies, etc)

All my prices are USD from B&H. I'm not shopping around either.

Except you were mixing them with the prices I've already put in the thread.

And for the Fisheye - We'll go with a Sigma $750

Or this Rokinon for $269: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/769428-REG/Rokinon_FE8M_C_8mm_Ultra_Wide_Angle.html

Do you really need AF at 8mm?

What's good for the goose. We can use the Rokinon 7.5mm FE on m4/3s as well. Thereby bringing the price down by the same amount.

I see no issue with that.

So, OM-D Mini kit = 962 grams

Canon APSC = 2435 grams, and if I go Canon I lose weathersealing and some of the magnification of my macro. I do gain a little bit of FOV in the standard zoom.

Cost $3700 for the Canon, $2700 for the Oly kit.

Canon cost: $2300 USD. All lenses are at least a stop faster as well, up to over 2 stops for the standard zoom (I'm speaking in equivalent apertures, mind you).

Actually $2570, with the correct price for the Sigma. Plus, I can also use the Rokinon, negating any price advantage there. Ergo, the Oly still ends up cheaper, and as you've carefully avoided the weight issue, a hell of a lot smaller and lighter. Also, as noted, you've missed the focal length I like. I didn't just choose a super expensive Canon standard zoom for fun.

As I've pointed out many, many times now, the DSLR kit might weigh more but it's mainly due to faster apertures. This comparison is no different.

From B&H, the Canon kit with the 15-85 total $2570. The OM-D kit with the Rokinon fisheye hits $2080. With a slight adjustment to the focal length range (a little less wide angle and a lot more telephoto), I could knock $400 off the Canon kit by getting the 18-135 kit lens. For an even slightly focal length change, add the Sigma and knock off almost $300.

So the OM-D kit's sole remaining "win" is weight but at the expense of slower apertures on all lenses. To begin coming close on apertures means spending more money than the DSLR kit (remember that 12-60mm lens for $1000) and eating into that weight advantage significantly.

Well, if we're going to compare whatever we like, then I would probably use the 12-35 and 35-70 f2.8s. That's not the point though. I asked Richard to put together a kit that would be similar to my small kit, and we'd see what the results were. We ended up with a non weatherproof kit that won't fit into the space I need it to, and weighed about 2.5 times as much. The benefits from this kit were marginal to me.

Now, you can probably shave a bit off the Canon kit. That standard zoom lens is awfully expensive for example. However, so far we still haven't even achieved weather proofing with that kit, nor have we stuck with FF lenses to future proof for FF adoption.

As if m4/3 lenses offer any upgrade path to a larger sensor camera.

Yeah, but there's no issues of commitment to m4/3s. If I were an APS-C user I'd be slightly concerned about FF moving into prosumer territory and APS-C moving down to entry level.

And you somehow think m4/3 is immune from that happening? What happens if the happy medium between compact and full frame turns out to be 1" sensors?

In the land of Nikon, any APS-C lens still works on a FX DSLR too. Some even cover the full sensor for most of their range.

There's quite a difference between a company cannibalising their market with "better products" and a company that's fully committed to a format failing. The first is almost inevitable. The second, not necessarily. I could however be wrong, and APS-C sticks around because of the long lens wildlife shooters. It doesn't really matter though, as I think most of the lenses we chose were APS-C lenses.

We won't look at what happens when we add a long lens for wildlife.

If you want something with a larger aperture, you're out of luck with m4/3.

So faster than an f5.6 on a 400mm (assuming we're still sticking to the Canon). Yeah, not interested thanks.

The best you are going to get from Olympus is 600mm at a f/13.4 equivalent (a $900 lens). Or 300mm at f/11 equivalent. For APS-C I can mount a Sigma 150-500 for $150 more and get a 750mm f/9.5 equivalent. Or a Canon 100-400 for $1460 and get 600mm f/8. That's not much money for a 1.5 stop improvement. Try that for any other telephoto lens comparison.

And while you might be ok with an ultra-slow super-telephoto, plenty of wildlife shooters would disagree on the importance of a fast aperture. With a larger format, at least there is the option even if costs more than most are willing to pay. You can always rent as needed.

I think you mean a $550 lens. Try and keep up.

Funnily enough, I did consider this. Guess what? I chose the camera that offered the most versatility for my photography.

Sorry it offends you.

PS. I have no issue with equivalency. It's a useful way to compare across formats.

However, using it as you are for long telephotos just looks stupid. When using a long telephoto the most important thing is exposure. All long telephoto lenses on most formats will be used in a pretty similar fashion, with an open aperture, to enable a faster shutter speed. The DoF, and for that matter equivalency is pretty well irrelevant. A better argument would be to state that under normal usage, a smaller sensor will have more noise.

In short, you've got your priorities wrong. You should be worrying about exposure first and foremost, to get that shutter speed up. Then worry about whether or not you can take the exact same image on other systems. Exposure first, for which most long teles are f5.6, or f6.7, or whatever.

 Martin.au's gear list:Martin.au's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow