Swapping EM1 for A7

Started Oct 17, 2013 | Discussions thread
amalric Forum Pro • Posts: 10,839
Which is the more strategic ownership?

DLBlack wrote:

I have had my E-M1 for little over a week and I have been very impressed with it. It is a lot better camera than my E-M5. The C-AF and C-AF w/ Tracking works really good. The large buffer size is great. The direct buttons makes the camer very useable. The lens selection is very good.

The new FF Sony seems to lack those things. So I will be sticking with my E-M1.

Here I am quoting from another thread, in a complemetary way:

"TOP, as I quoted mentions that already one of those Zeiss 21mm has colour shift and vignetting on the A7, so one of those pretexts for getting it is gone.

However there is a far more reaching argument - correct me if I am wrong. m4/3 has reached a threshold of excellency. It has enough pixel density to guarantee terrific DR - 12-13 stops. It has among the highest per pixel sharpness thanks to high resolution, both in the sensor, the low AA filter and in the best lenses.

Therefore what you earn in 35mm is not quality but quantity: a bigger image. I even read that my E-M5 has the same resolution of a 5d Mk.2. S. Huff also made one of hist 'Strange Comparisons' with an M9 - favourably. So why should I ever care of going 35mm?

m4/3 is 'good enough', but in a new sense - it cannot get much better except spatially, quantitatively. But with 35mm I will get lenses which are slower, bigger or more expensive.

Finally do i need to print twice the size? Do I need more pixel density or do I rather need more pixels?

That is why TOP considered m4/3 a strategic format - the 'Big Kahuna' of them all as they dubbed it.

Having a smaller sensor has lots of advantages: quicker processing, and from that follows quick AF and quick fps. Easier IBIS. more adaptability. And I personally welcome more DOF, as most old style, true photogs.

I know that I am going against the crowd, which is clamouring for more - and 'FF' - but I couldn't care less. I have more resolution than I ever had in most of my life, and possibly my eyes cannot detect anything better, except if I start stressing the image to levels of magnification I would never do."

When the A7 appeared the other day, I had an irrational reaction:'this is going to crush m4/3'.

The when the first data appeared, especially about the lenses, I cooled down. At best, like before 35mm could be suitable for classical Landscape and slow Portrait, whereas my genres are a lot more dynamic, ideally matched to the responsiveness of the E-M5. Why change all the lenses, that are ideally small and sharp?

If you hold your powders dry, you will see that in digital half frame is far more strategic than full frame. It is like a hare running in front of a boar, to use a metaphor.

I think nobody is ever going to make a disparaging remark about the E-M1, or the E-M5's IQ. With 35mm you'll simply get larger images. If I did work for Stock, I'd consider it, but certainly not now.


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow