Moving from 2/3" to APS or u4/3 questions

Started Mar 20, 2012 | Discussions thread
Statross2 Contributing Member • Posts: 621
Re: Moving from 2/3" to APS or u4/3 questions

I read this thread and have to stick up for the Sony EVFs. I have the A55 and its EVF is excellent and more than penty sharp for critical focus at all mags up to and beyond 1:1 magnification. Plus it has 2-stage focus magnifier which is immensely handy. I've not used one of the new ones but theyre supposed to twice as good, so can only imagine at what theyre like.

sem has probably been coloured by the old 200k finders on superzooms (yuk!) that are totally unusable in almost every circumstance.

The Sony SLT cameras are the ideal macro camera, with excellent live view, swivelly screens and focus magnifier functions + high FPS for stacking.

As for the ipad, the new one has about 260ppi where the A55 EVF has about 400ppi (not dpi). In any case, ppi doesnt matter as long as it can be used for critical focus, which i can most definitely say it can, so there's really no worry there if you want to go down the Amount route, plus the way sony is going, the EVFs will just get better and better over the next few years

If you're going to use your new camera as an everything camera, then an 18-250+raynox is a good idea. NEX really doesnt have much in the way of macro lenses at the moment, if you wanted a macro lens and not an achromat, NEX might be something to avoid for now. m4/3 and alpha-mount have good macro lenses with alpha-mount having the greatest selection at the moment (and probably will have for at least the next couple of years). The DOF issue with m4/3 and APS-C is roughly negligible, especially at 0.5x magnification. A lot of factors should take precedence over that issue because the difference is small.

If you really want a great macro camera...then the A65 has got to be the one to get. Well, the A77 would, but it's more expensive and you're on a budget. The reasons for the A65 are: high FPS, good EVF, the 24mp sensor has truly excellent resolution at low ISO. Alpha mount also has good macro lens selection + other lenses. It's not lacking much there except a couple of specialised lenses and a couple of fast zooms in odd focal lengths.

18-250 + raynox 250 is a fine combination. It's not as good as a dedicated macro lens, especially in the corners and suffers more from CA but if you arent cropping near to 100% you probably wont notice. Also..a raynox 250 is about £40, which is a most reasonable price.

I've stopped using my combination of 18-250 + raynox 250 now because I do crop to 100% and have dedicated macro lenses and I can, unfortunately, see the difference. It's worth noting that, for my combination (tamron 18-250) sharpness suffers a little drop but contrast is almost unaffected. It's a good combination, especially for someone who doesnt want a dedicated set-up like me (I dot use my DSLR for holiday snaps...I just use compacts for that).

Rayonx are pretty much the best, especially for the price. Canon made a very good achromat (250d or 500d or something) but I heard they stopped production a while ago. It was also very expensive. If you pay 250$US for a raynox 250 you've paid way too much, in the UK it was around £40 when i bought mine, so in USD it should be about 65-70.

"Will there be a major loss of DOF compared to my A2 due to sensor size ? "

probably. Especially with an 18-25 zoomed in all the way+raynox250. I couldnt say without seeing the DOF of an A2. Whatever the difference, it's certainly very usable, so while there may be a difference it (probably) wont be an issue.

"I'd hate to spend $1500-1700 on what ends up as a expensive vacation snapshot camera if I find it doesn't improve on the A2's closeup capability - the closeups are what I am "serious" about.
Will I be better off in the u4/3 format for that instead of APS-C ?
(The reason I'd go APS is those Sony 2.4M EVFs... the A2's EVF has spoiled me)"

If you're "serious" i'd skip an 18-250+raynox all together and spend the money on a macro lens. What's an 18-250 these days? about 350$ + 70$ for a raynox...that's about the price of a tamron 90mm and not much less than a 60mm.

Then you can keep your A2 for holidays and snapshots. Carrying a DSLR on holiday ruins the fun anyway unless it's a photographing holiday.

As for m4/3....i'd say not. The platform is not as evolved yet as A-mount and A-mount is making some serious progress in terms of bodies and lenses. NEX has some great bodies but poor lens seletion. M4/3 is in the middle with good bodies and okay selection. For macro, i'd have to discount canon and nikon at the moment purely for the benefits of A-mount bodies (and m4/3+NEX, actually) to macro photographers. That's not to say theyre bad for macro...that's ridiculous. But for soemone who is system-less and doesnt have a > 4000$ budget, the A-mount mid-level bodies offer truely excellent performance.

"I'd particularly like to hear from anyone else who went from compact superzoom to APS/u43 and what differences they found."

hey, that's me came from a panasonic FZ18 (and have a 28, too). I found many differences. If you have a specific question, i'd be happy to answer instead of rattling off a very long list of differences.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow