Anders W
Forum Pro
Massive more resolution at f/8? What evidence?
Massively sharper images wide open? What evidence?
What would be the point if you can shoot with equal quality with the Pany 20/1.7?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Thought provoking article
- Thread starter Neurad1
- Start date
n3eg
Senior Member
Doooooooom.
Ask me if I care.
MFT and DSLRs both may have reached the "Windows XP tipping point" where people aren't replacing them as often because the old product is so good and the new one is only 12% better instead of 50% better. Everybody has to cope with that, not just one brand or style.
I bought a Pentax Auto 110 SLR camera, fully unsupported by anyone else, back in 1981. I used it continuously until good 110 film was no longer available with any kind of regularity in the early 1990s. Now I have an Olympus E-PL5 and three lenses. I don't think my "film" is going away any time soon. Sensor resolution has stalled. I think I'm set for the future.
And I'm an expert at rebuilding battery packs, if Ebay ever dries up...
Ask me if I care.
MFT and DSLRs both may have reached the "Windows XP tipping point" where people aren't replacing them as often because the old product is so good and the new one is only 12% better instead of 50% better. Everybody has to cope with that, not just one brand or style.
I bought a Pentax Auto 110 SLR camera, fully unsupported by anyone else, back in 1981. I used it continuously until good 110 film was no longer available with any kind of regularity in the early 1990s. Now I have an Olympus E-PL5 and three lenses. I don't think my "film" is going away any time soon. Sensor resolution has stalled. I think I'm set for the future.
And I'm an expert at rebuilding battery packs, if Ebay ever dries up...
David 247
Senior Member
Careful now, you are starting to sound like a professional photographer. One of the real ones who uses the appropriate equipment for the job. 35 one day, medium format the next and 4X5" view camera when the job calls for it. Their system attachments are limited to what they are invested in, and will always consider something else if the investment will pay off in income sufficient to offset the investment and make a profit. Systems allegiance is based upon dollars and cents, not on name, brand of sensor or number of pixels. If it does the job, that is all they ask, if it doesn't they will borrow or rent something that does unless it becomes a common occurrence then they will invest in something new.
There are several different factors going on on the forums. One is the "bigger is always better" idea, which is heavily cultural in the United states, our cars, trucks houses, TV's, just about everything have to be bigger... it is almost a cultural imperative for some to keep up with the Jones's. While this occurs all over the world in smaller degrees it is dominate in the US. I live in an old part of town where the houses are small, compact and cozy, 1930's style. A few blocks away is a recently developed area that used to be a military base. The houses are huge. Having lived in the philippines for a time, I look at these houses and realize that a family of four lives in a place big enough to house 5-10 families in most third world countries. But bigger is better, right?
Likewise you have the fearmongers who seek to spread fear against any idea or concept that is contrary to their own. This is a much more global phenomena but it exists heavily in politics and religion and has sub sects in just about every major field of sports, entertainment, hobby, or any personal interest field. They are perpetual evangelists for whatever cause or product they seize upon.
Then there are the Naysayers. They have no boundaries and live to dispell any thought or theorem just for the sake of arguing. They typically have small life circles and thrive on the internet as they don't have to leave the safety of their small worlds to tell everyone how wrong they are. You will recognize them easily when you "agree with them" on an issue and they will promptly tell you how wrong you are because you are incapable of understanding what they know.
In smaller portions you find the genuine, inquisitive and helpful. They seek to learn and while they may disagree do so respectively.
After that you have the doers. They are far more likely to be out doing, photographing and creating. They will drop in when it suites them for social sharing and discovery, and are often more readers then writers. You will more likely find them in the forums where people discuss the art, science and technique of photography rather then equipment.
Then there is the real world. All those millions of people out there who are happy with whatever camera they have or no camera at all, if it suits their purpose. They are far to busy enjoying life to spend much time in forums at all, unless they are just bored and have nothing else to do which doesn't happen often. They are the bigger consumers and are more likely to buy what they commonly see then invest a lot of time in learning the differences, because no matter what they get they will enjoy it to the fullest until they outgrow it then they will move on.
MichaelKJ
Senior Member
One person writes an ill informed article on his blog and you conclude that M4/3 has them worried? IMO, your need to write such a detailed response to his nonsense comes across as being overly defensive.
David 247
Senior Member
Maybe that comes under the category of too much information.
That they ask if it is a DSLR indicates they have a limited understanding. A better answer might be "It is like a DSLR but smaller, lighter and easier to carry but still takes very good photos like a DSLR." Then if they ask questions that indicate an interest, you can gently explain the differences.
A lot of people seem to think that mirrorless should be positioned as a premium product. That is understandable given that M43 users are prepared to pay premium prices for their product. It seems that Olympus would agree given their propensity for special edition luxury versions.
The problem is that I dont think this will fly with the general consumer - I think cameras are pretty price elastic. A camera is a camera. In fact, for instance, I suspect that the average consumer thinks that say a camera without a viewfinder is actually worth less than one with - whether it is an EVF or OVF. So if M43 and mirrorless is priced at a premium it will simply fail to get the market penetration that the manufacturers expect.
To see how M43 is priced at a premium consider 3 camera manufacturers projected gross margin for their imaging business in the current year.
Canon 40%
Nikon 35%
Olympus 44%
Now of course Olympus is a lot less profitable but that is because its overheads - SGA expenses - are some 50% higher as a percentage of sales. (Given this, I actually find it is surprising that people seem so adamant that the route to a successful business for Olympus is to spend 'more' on SG&A.)
Furthermore, Olympus's gross margin is achieved with a much higher percentage of compacts in their sales mix - approximately 50%, compared to a around 20% for Canon and Nikon (by value). Bearing that in mind and assuming compacts are much lower margins, the differential in the gross margins of their ILC products is substantially greater.
The problem is that I dont think this will fly with the general consumer - I think cameras are pretty price elastic. A camera is a camera. In fact, for instance, I suspect that the average consumer thinks that say a camera without a viewfinder is actually worth less than one with - whether it is an EVF or OVF. So if M43 and mirrorless is priced at a premium it will simply fail to get the market penetration that the manufacturers expect.
To see how M43 is priced at a premium consider 3 camera manufacturers projected gross margin for their imaging business in the current year.
Canon 40%
Nikon 35%
Olympus 44%
Now of course Olympus is a lot less profitable but that is because its overheads - SGA expenses - are some 50% higher as a percentage of sales. (Given this, I actually find it is surprising that people seem so adamant that the route to a successful business for Olympus is to spend 'more' on SG&A.)
Furthermore, Olympus's gross margin is achieved with a much higher percentage of compacts in their sales mix - approximately 50%, compared to a around 20% for Canon and Nikon (by value). Bearing that in mind and assuming compacts are much lower margins, the differential in the gross margins of their ILC products is substantially greater.
Andres Gomez
Member
- Messages
- 13
- Reaction score
- 13
I have a DSLR and I love the way it responds when you need it. But my wife wanted something less bulcky and a bougth a PS, a good one, but now she complains that is imposible to shoot good pictures in low light or compouse out in bright light because is hard to see the screen. My new solution to have the best of both worlds: I will get rid of all the equipment, including an hd camcorder, and buy a new GX7. Sppedy, with a VF and super video quality. I believe that eventualy everybody will face the same dilema and will end with the same M4/3 solution.
I agree - is is a good thing, that we have a complete line up beginning with the EPM and GF series, extending up to enthusiast models.
Your "average consumer" is right: Entry DSLR models have EVF and OVF and sell at the same price as entry model MFTs without EVF. And the VF is most useful, when and where the "average consumer" uses the camera: during holidays in bright sunshine.
This applies best to the EP5 - with the GX7 being hardly more expensive.
Peter.
2 GX7 surely? One for you and one for your wife?
Sales seem to indicate, that "eventually" means quite a long time. BUt let's hope, you are right.
Peter
Check dpr test scenario shots.
Check any test or review for these two lens.
That simply is not possible. Sny 24mp ff sensor is miles superior than any m43 sensor. The only current 40mm ff lens is canon 40/2.8 STM, which also happens to be miles superior than panny 20/1.7, and half stop faster.
There's nothing new there.
m43 is a brilliant format. Small, compact, terrific image quality.
135FF is a brilliant format. Ultimate in image quality if you're willing to pay the price in cost and weight.
Make your choice. Have fun, enjoy.
Mahmoud Mousef
Senior Member
Article says:
Public perception of these smaller systems is that they are inferior to DSLRs so many don't even consider them, even if they only plan to get a DSLR and leave it in P mode with a kit lens for its entire life.
I would disagree with this. This is only the perception of DSLR enthusiasts that haven't discovered the benefits of mirrorless cameras, or understood that they can do things that DSLRs can't (and offer a different shooting experience in areas the DSLR can't - silent shutters for one!). This same ultra-minority (considering the overall potential market for quality smaller cameras)...this same minority refuse to see them as just another tool in the kit.
Too bad for them.
The overwhelming majority of people for whom a mirrorless model will be a big benefit over a bigger DSLR simply don't even know what mirrorless means; they just want a smaller camera with good quality. They are the ones most likely to pick up a smaller interchangeable lens camera rather than buy a DSLR. Can you imagine many people going for larger kit if they don't have to (all things being equal?). You'll only get a minority doing this, in my opinion.
So many users gravitate to a smaller size if they can still get good quality and we have seen this with so many current DSLR users too. The mirrorless models on offer have barely started exploiting the potential customers. Asia shows the beginnings of a growing trend (DSLR sales were down more than mirrorless). The marketing needs to be right and the prices need to be more reasonable, but I think we haven't even scratched the surface of just how far this segment of the photographic market will go.
Article says:
It's inevitable that at some point in time, sensor production cost will have gotten to a point where full frame is viable in any SLR and at that point who is going to continue to use a Micro Four Thirds sized sensor?
People that want the benefits of smaller gear? Silent shutters? 100% live view? More depth-of-field? Plus any other feature better done on a mirrorless body?
Won't the savings translate to smaller sensors too? So there will always be a gap. Companies could always save more money by going smaller sensor to reach different price points and needs. Why would a company want to have all cameras all full-frame? Or put another way, why are we still seeing small sensors in today's cameras despite a massive drop in digital sensor prices over the past decade?
Size, cost and convenience still mean something.
Article says:
My main problem with all of this is that I am a lens man. I put my money in lenses first and cameras second. Good lenses have the potential to last a whole career and some of the best hold their value incredibly well. When I buy into a system I want to invest in a set of top quality lenses that are going to last me a very long time. Right now I simply can't justify doing that with any confidence.
Then go with established systems. There seems to be no benefit for your usage to consider mirrorless lenses or bodies.
Public perception of these smaller systems is that they are inferior to DSLRs so many don't even consider them, even if they only plan to get a DSLR and leave it in P mode with a kit lens for its entire life.
I would disagree with this. This is only the perception of DSLR enthusiasts that haven't discovered the benefits of mirrorless cameras, or understood that they can do things that DSLRs can't (and offer a different shooting experience in areas the DSLR can't - silent shutters for one!). This same ultra-minority (considering the overall potential market for quality smaller cameras)...this same minority refuse to see them as just another tool in the kit.
Too bad for them.
The overwhelming majority of people for whom a mirrorless model will be a big benefit over a bigger DSLR simply don't even know what mirrorless means; they just want a smaller camera with good quality. They are the ones most likely to pick up a smaller interchangeable lens camera rather than buy a DSLR. Can you imagine many people going for larger kit if they don't have to (all things being equal?). You'll only get a minority doing this, in my opinion.
So many users gravitate to a smaller size if they can still get good quality and we have seen this with so many current DSLR users too. The mirrorless models on offer have barely started exploiting the potential customers. Asia shows the beginnings of a growing trend (DSLR sales were down more than mirrorless). The marketing needs to be right and the prices need to be more reasonable, but I think we haven't even scratched the surface of just how far this segment of the photographic market will go.
Article says:
It's inevitable that at some point in time, sensor production cost will have gotten to a point where full frame is viable in any SLR and at that point who is going to continue to use a Micro Four Thirds sized sensor?
People that want the benefits of smaller gear? Silent shutters? 100% live view? More depth-of-field? Plus any other feature better done on a mirrorless body?
Won't the savings translate to smaller sensors too? So there will always be a gap. Companies could always save more money by going smaller sensor to reach different price points and needs. Why would a company want to have all cameras all full-frame? Or put another way, why are we still seeing small sensors in today's cameras despite a massive drop in digital sensor prices over the past decade?
Size, cost and convenience still mean something.
Article says:
My main problem with all of this is that I am a lens man. I put my money in lenses first and cameras second. Good lenses have the potential to last a whole career and some of the best hold their value incredibly well. When I buy into a system I want to invest in a set of top quality lenses that are going to last me a very long time. Right now I simply can't justify doing that with any confidence.
Then go with established systems. There seems to be no benefit for your usage to consider mirrorless lenses or bodies.
It is pretty straightforward
- The camera business is in a huge contraction because of smartphones.
- Panasonic and Olympus in particular are financially troubled, and the fact that their camera divisions lose money doesn't help.
- Although mirrorless sales are stagnant at the time being stagnant is not bad in a declining sector.
- Mirrorless bodies have maybe 1/4 the parts of a low-end DSLR, yet they are priced similarly to DSLRs
- NEX and m43 are the successful mirrorless platforms, each with similar sales.
If m43 goes down it will be due to the financial weakness of Panasonic and Olympus. The product is good, it is a major player in its segment, and image quality is good enough for a 20x30 enlargement where most people rarely go larger than an 11x14.
Many people prefer a smaller system, and that will continue to be true. Will still more prefer DSLR size? Maybe, but enough like small to support reasonable sales volume.
Will FF sensors get cheap enough so APS-C DSLRs shrink away slowly? Maybe, but if anything that will help m43 because FF lenses will increase the kit size differential.
Worry about Panasonic and Olympus shucking cameras in an industry transition. m43 as a platform that can find buyers is solid.
- The camera business is in a huge contraction because of smartphones.
- Panasonic and Olympus in particular are financially troubled, and the fact that their camera divisions lose money doesn't help.
- Although mirrorless sales are stagnant at the time being stagnant is not bad in a declining sector.
- Mirrorless bodies have maybe 1/4 the parts of a low-end DSLR, yet they are priced similarly to DSLRs
- NEX and m43 are the successful mirrorless platforms, each with similar sales.
If m43 goes down it will be due to the financial weakness of Panasonic and Olympus. The product is good, it is a major player in its segment, and image quality is good enough for a 20x30 enlargement where most people rarely go larger than an 11x14.
Many people prefer a smaller system, and that will continue to be true. Will still more prefer DSLR size? Maybe, but enough like small to support reasonable sales volume.
Will FF sensors get cheap enough so APS-C DSLRs shrink away slowly? Maybe, but if anything that will help m43 because FF lenses will increase the kit size differential.
Worry about Panasonic and Olympus shucking cameras in an industry transition. m43 as a platform that can find buyers is solid.
Anders W
Forum Pro
To my knowledge, there is no DPR "test scenario" where you can view the Sony RX1 and the PL 25/1.4 on an MFT camera side by side, let alone do so with both shot at f/8.
The Sony RX1 is a camera, not a lens. Off-hand, I know of no review site that offers good and directly comparable MTF test data for the Sony RX1 versus the PL 25/1.4 on an MFT camera.
To my knowledge, the Canon 40/2.8 can only be used on Canon FF cameras, which do not have Sony sensors. All current Canon FF sensors have lower base ISO DR than cameras with the latest MFT sensor (E-M5, E-PM2, E-PL5, E-P5, GH3). At higher ISOs, you can open the Pany lens up 1.5 stop more than the Canon and go pretty much equal in that respect. The same would be true at higher ISOs in comparison with Sony FF sensors.
Superior in what way? Certainly not when it comes to what you and I are discussing here, i.e., MTF values (resolution/microcontrast). Below you find directly comparable test data from LensRentals (line pairs per image height at MTF-50, center/average, based on unsharpened output from RAW files):
Canon 40/2.8 on 5DII (21 MP)
f/2.8 870/775
Panasonic 20/1.7 on E-M5 (16 MP)
f/1.7 870/735
f/2.8 1050/875
In general, I think you'd be well advised to read up just a little bit before posting strong claims with regard to matters you know little about.
Last edited:
YouDidntDidYou
Senior Member
Panasonic and Olympus have very strong cash flow, Olympus has investors and partners willing to invest in them and they have already gone trough much of their financial pain, and both have strong plans going forward...
On the other hand I would take a closer look at Nikon and see what future you really think they have, Canon will be around for a little while longer, having successfully pushing more into video and having more diversity to their bow.
YouDidntDidYou
Senior Member
Olympus have already said they will reduce their imaging division's SG&A expenses and at the same time make their remaining SG&A expenses work harder/more fruitful....
CollBaxter
Forum Pro
From someone from the other 4/3 side where we are bombarded with the possible loss of Olympus DSLR's these type of articles are though provoking. Most of us who are left are lens people and the fear there is that Olympus might take a no return path on a downward slope. Whether that is true or not time will tell. These type of articles actually mirror a lot of my and some others thoughts.
OK I am going to be bombarded with the size issue weight issue etc. etc and the advantages and how mirror less is going to take over the world etc. But figures however do tell a tale. There are statements about the problem being the the public being uneducated about mirror-less etc. The problem there is the general public are the ones who buy cameras the other buyers are here bickering amongst ourselves with the mine is better or smaller than yours .
Most people here are not first time camera buyers and are here because m4/3 filled a vacuum that has existed for a long time, mainly for a smaller lighter camera. Once that vacuum filled sales are going to take a bit of a dive. The name mirror-less I recon is the completely wrong way to market or even to refer to these cameras to the general public as they do not know or even care about whether the camera has a mirror or not .
The System should be marketed or referred to for its functions , convenience etc. Its no good marketing something with a picture of a camera in someones hand. Hell you can hire some one with huge hands to model with a average size camera in it. Marketing the name mirror-less camera to the general public could even give the impression that you are depriving them of something as the first question would be 'what do canon or nikon top cameras use.' So maybe I am on the wrong side of the world but I have never seen a advert by Olympus or Panasonic that shows what the system is really about. Or maybe they need to do a lot of public demonstrating and marketing on why mirror-less is supposedly better , and the benefits there of. Marketing people coin Phrases names and words which only they understand but omit to explain to the general public.
So back to my point of thought provoking and worries. As a lens person ( The light has to travel through the lens , so the better the lens ultimately the better the picture. ) who has put many thousands of dollars / euros into some excellent 4/3 lenses. Do I want to go down a path which could land up as act 1 scene 2 . OK at this point I will get the ' well go somewhere else etc '. The sad part is a lot of us ( Original 4/3 shooters) don't have option's or a fall back system like many users here do. But that's our problem for buying the first round of kool aid.
So assuming m4/3 has captured a large percentage of the photography enthusiasts that want to convert to something smaller. What do Companies like Olympus and Panasonic do ? . Me I don't know as I am just a dumb boy that lives in a mud hut in darkest Africa with lions roaming the street , but they need to reinvent there marketing and in the case of Olympus in my opinion they need to invent marketing.
Well the next few months will be interesting to say the least.
Mirror less will be become the future once canon and nikon decide it's the future, also sad but i believe true.
P.S. I am not a bitter 4/3 user who envy's m4/3 their toys ( Just the sensor ) . I purchased an Olympus ZD Pro 90-250 f/2.8 lens last month because I need and wanted one and got a good buy. I also use all my lenses and cameras every week . If nothing transpires I will ware them out ( Bodies) and move along.
--
Collin
(Aficionado Olympus DSLR )
http://collinbaxter.zenfolio.com/
http://www.pbase.com/collinbaxter
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. (George Carlin)
New Seventh Wonder of the World.
http://www.pbase.com/collinbaxter/image/95297052.jpg
Last edited:
You do not need to compare to PL25, you can compare RX1 to any m43 with default lens (which is at the least as sharp as PL25), RZ1 still comes out with massive more resolution.
RX1 is a camera with a lens, unless you try very hard it is difficult to avoid the ample RX1 lens tests.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Le...ony/Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX1-Lens/(camera)/833
There is no need to see a direct A vs B comparison to get the basic idea of how A performs, how B performs, and how they would do against each other.
We are talking about the idiocy to claim sony FF sensor cannot be used with a smaller lens, sicne the RX1 system camera is hypothetical, its supporting lens are also hypothetical. is that hard to get?
Lets see...
Distortion? CA?
That is exactly what you should do.
Anders W
Forum Pro
May I recommend a visit to your eye doctor.
In the part of my text that you found it convenient to omit from the passage you quote, I asked for good and comparable test data. That isn't it.
If you think differently, please explain to everyone here how the DxO P-MPix mumbo-jumbo is technically defined and measured and in what way it is technically superior to the MTF-50 values other sources report.
There is a need to have good, directly comparable data. If the data aren't good, they are irrelevant, and if they aren't comparable you can't compare them. Is that so hard to get?
We are talking about the idiocy of comparing the performance of a lens that does not exist with one that exists. And for reasons already shown, in the text of mine you quote below as well as the one you found it convenient to omit, the 20/1.7 on an MFT camera, stands up very well to the 40/2.8 on a Canon FF.
We were talking resolution and you turned out to be clearly wrong in that regard (see the results below).
Distortion and CA? Both are auto-corrected when the 20 is used on a Pany body, with virtually no downsides. Not an issue.
As everyone can see for themselves, I have done it. You haven't. Hence my friendly advice. ;-)
CollBaxter wrote:
From someone from the other 4/3 side where we are bombarded with the possible loss of Olympus DSLR's these type of articles are though provoking. Most of us who are left are lens people and the fear there is that Olympus might take a no return path on a downward slope. Whether that is true or not time will tell. These type of articles actually mirror a lot of my and some others thoughts.
OK I am going to be bombarded with the size issue weight issue etc. etc and the advantages and how mirror less is going to take over the world etc. But figures however do tell a tale. There are statements about the problem being the the public being uneducated about mirror-less etc. The problem there is the general public are the ones who buy cameras the other buyers are here bickering amongst ourselves with the mine is better or smaller than yours .
Most people here are not first time camera buyers and are here because m4/3 filled a vacuum that has existed for a long time, mainly for a smaller lighter camera. Once that vacuum filled sales are going to take a bit of a dive. The name mirror-less I recon is the completely wrong way to market or even to refer to these cameras to the general public as they do not know or even care about whether the camera has a mirror or not .
The System should be marketed or referred to for its functions , convenience etc. Its no good marketing something with a picture of a camera in someones hand. Hell you can hire some one with huge hands to model with a average size camera in it. Marketing the name mirror-less camera to the general public could even give the impression that you are depriving them of something as the first question would be 'what do canon or nikon top cameras use.' So maybe I am on the wrong side of the world but I have never seen a advert by Olympus or Panasonic that shows what the system is really about. Or maybe they need to do a lot of public demonstrating and marketing on why mirror-less is supposedly better , and the benefits there of. Marketing people coin Phrases names and words which only they understand but omit to explain to the general public.
So back to my point of thought provoking and worries. As a lens person ( The light has to travel through the lens , so the better the lens ultimately the better the picture. ) who has put many thousands of dollars / euros into some excellent 4/3 lenses. Do I want to go down a path which could land up as act 1 scene 2 . OK at this point I will get the ' well go somewhere else etc '. The sad part is a lot of us ( Original 4/3 shooters) don't have option's or a fall back system like many users here do. But that's our problem for buying the first round of kool aid.
So assuming m4/3 has captured a large percentage of the photography enthusiasts that want to convert to something smaller. What do Companies like Olympus and Panasonic do ? . Me I don't know as I am just a dumb boy that lives in a mud hut in darkest Africa with lions roaming the street , but they need to reinvent there marketing and in the case of Olympus in my opinion they need to invent marketing.
Well the next few months will be interesting to say the least.
Mirror less will be become the future once canon and nikon decide it's the future, also sad but i believe true.
P.S. I am not a bitter 4/3 user who envy's m4/3 their toys ( Just the sensor ) . I purchased an Olympus ZD Pro 90-250 f/2.8 lens last month because I need and wanted one and got a good buy. I also use all my lenses and cameras every week . If nothing transpires I will ware them out ( Bodies) and move along.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum