Mirrorless cameras part 2.

Started Mar 7, 2013 | Discussions thread
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 5,429
Like?
Re: Mirrorless cameras part 2.
In reply to joejack951, Mar 9, 2013

I'm pretty well done with this thread, but I'll just clarify a couple of things.

joejack951 wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

joejack951 wrote:

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.

How was I being pedantic? You claimed 1:1 on m4/3 equaled 2:1 on APS-C/FF (not sure which you intended). Had you claimed you wanted 16MP on a 17mm x 13mm sensor, then that would have been different.

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.

At B&H, the Canon is cheaper. I don't see the point in discussing equivalent apertures any more with you as you go on to say that you aren't concerned about them later in your post. If that's the case though, I don't see why you wouldn't be using a Pentax Q if size is such a concern.

All things are a compromise. You go smaller in size, you get less IQ. I was after a balance. I didn't want the smallest camera possible. You need to factor in everything, such as lens selection, features, etc when buying a new camera.

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.

Ok, and I used the kit price in my summary too.

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).

Ok.

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.

My point was that the Olympus 12-60, which you claim to own but conveniently leave out of this comparison, costs as much as two lenses for APS-C, one of which would give you the 24mm FF FOV that you so want while the other would be a full stop faster than the 12-60 in equivalent terms. Ignore it if you want, but I think that's a substantial point.

I own lots of stuff that's left out of this comparison. That was the whole point behind the discussion – that you could strip down a mirrorless down to be a tiny kit if you wanted to. I use this tiny kit quite often as it's small enough to fit into my iPad bag. It's the kit I use for filling in an hour or two at the end of a work day, or when I have a break at Uni.

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

I'm not sure why you even began to address points I'm making then since all I'm discussing is equivalency.

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.

I did at first. My last reply fixed that.

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.

Ok, your specific need for a 24mm FF FOV does make it difficult to make a m4/3 kit given that none of the really small APS-C kit lenses go that wide.

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.

I'm using USD prices. My quoted prices are easy to check at B&H's site.

The 75-300 had a price drop in the last month with the introduction of the mk2. It's now $550US. B&H I presume have the old lens and pirice.

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

Sorry it offends you.

No, it doesn't offend me at all. I want you to use what works for you. I also don't want to see people duped into thinking they have this tiny m4/3 kit that equals a full frame DSLR kit because the f/ numbers and field of view are the same. It doesn't sound like that's happened to you. EinsteinsGhost on the other hand, does sound duped.

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.

There are several threads discussing why for the same aperture and shutter speed, the larger sensor gathers more light. If you want to equal that light of the larger sensor, you need to adjust your aperture by the crop factor.

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.

More noise and less subject isolation.

Yeah, but subject isolation is rarely an issue at 300/600mm

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.

Go on believing what you want to believe.

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