To me the smaller formats like m43 is somewhat like using a superzoom lens. Convinient, but does nothing excellent. Soon you get tired of that. Personally I rather have superb performance in the range I use most - 24, 28, 35, 50, 85 - than have a huge range, but with less good results.
For PDAF accuracy to be perfect, the focus sensor must be perfectly aligned to the image sensor and lenses have to be perfectly calibrated, which is rarely fully the case.My 85/1.4 focuses perfectly accurately using PDAF wide open, and it's a Sigma. No issues with my Nikon 35/1.4 either. How do those m4/3 17/0.7 and 42/0.7 lenses do? Oh, right....One of the greatest advantage of mirrorless (especially MFT) that is very often overlooked is AF accuracy. I'm not talking about tracking, but single shot accuracy.
AF is always extremely accurate, miles and heaps more accurate than PDAF as it works on the final image. Micro adjustments are a thing of the past and it's very liberating to be able to just shoot without always checking whether the AF was OK or not. It just always is
--
Florent
http://capturedbyflo.com
http://capturedbyflo.blogspot.com
It's a panasonic 25mm f1.4...
I personally do not have the time (or skill) to manually focus a moving subject. I shoot a lot of kids and some weddings. I do not own anything else than F-mount lenses so the ability to use another mount is of little relevance to me.
I was misinformed and stand corrected.
I didn't do my research on the accessories thoroughly enough before ranting. Didn't realize they made a grip, but it's a bit ironic to add a grip to a body and make it bigger when the sales pitch is mostly about the size.
All of the photos comparisons posted above bear out the following for me: The E-M1 is too small for my grip. I've been shooting the Olympus E-5. With Oly saying they will not build any more DSLRs I am switching to a Nikon FF. I tried the E-M5 and it was too small. My finger tips bore into the front face before I could get a grip around the grip. It was more like pinching than gripping. I also don't care for the many limitations of MILC.
This always comes across as a copout to me, to put such a big market share issue down purely to consumer ignorance is IMHO highly questionable.
Actually, with the latest generation of M43s sensors, they outperform relative to their size. What I mean is that they are actually proximate in low light performance until about iso 1000-1600. Being proximate actually means the smaller sensor is working harder. Technological innovation derived from smartphone cameras enhances the performance of the Sony m43s sensor, and it's exactly the same technology as allows for the (relatively low noise) 36mp in the D800. Better technology starts in smaller sensors first and works it's way up the size scale.
I mostly agree with what you wrote.
..of course the big question then becomes who controls this mirrorless future. If size isn't an issue then using a DSLR mount becomes perfectly reasonable.
I noted "light gathering capability" which is a function of both f-stop and sensor size. f/1.4 on a 2X crop sensor (relative to full frame) is like f/2.8 on full frame in terms of light gathering. It's a simple function of the density of the light (determined by f-stop) multiplied by the sensor area. A sensor with only 1/4 of the area needs 4X denser light (2 stops faster lens) to gather same light as the full size sensor.
For any lens/camera combo to work well, alignment of lens to sensor needs to be very near perfect. Manufacturers manage to do that time and again, and they also manage it for PDAF sensors.
Calling it outdated doesn't mean that it doesn't work very well. At ultra-thin DOFs (at levels currently unachievable on a 4/3 sensor) I'd rather have a sensor that can accurately track my subject's (and my own) movements than one that gives me a little better accuracy at the point at which my subject once was.
Yes, since all that DOF control that you had is gone so focus accuracy isn't much of an issue any more. The fastest m4/3 zooms that I'm aware of start at f/5.6 FF equivalent (f/2.8 Panasonics, which cost more than faster f/4 lenses for full frame to boot). That's horribly limiting in my opinion.I used to own a D800 which was a fantastic camera. However, getting perfect AF for all of my lenses was a nightmare. I used the Reikan FoCal software to calibrate all of my lenses. Guess what? My 70-200 required -2 at 70mm and +8 at 200mm!! How fantastic! You either have to choose peffect sharpness at 70 or at 200.
Since I moved to MFT, all this crap is over and can't be happier
. I have 3 Nikon FX, 3 DX and two Oly 43 (and soon the EM1). Some times I want light weight and will sacrifice ISO and dof and other times I cannot physically carry the weight. The DF gives me nothing than more than one(or more) of my existing cameras cannot. .
