-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Size comparison of FE 4/2470 on A7 vs Olympus 12-40 f2.8 on GX7
- Thread starter optoms
- Start date
It is a waste only if you only have APS-c lenses.
So you're saying it's a waste to shoot 16MP images on a smaller sensor area? I think plenty of M43 owners would disagree.
bluevellet
Veteran Member
Nice attempt, but i'm saying it's a waste to go FF if you not only shoot with APS-C lenses, but shoot with the substandard ones. Might as well just stick with Nex bodies since the argument started over physical sizes of photo gear.
And there are 2 A7 bodies, one go as low as 10 MP in cropped mode.
Last edited:
Of course NOT; what would a MF equivalent of the Sony 4/24-70 cost? What would the FF version of a f/2.8 25-600mm equiv. superzoom lens cost?
There is probably an optimal (sensor) size for certain types of lens design, and those are often the types of lenses that we have got used to for that format. I don't agree with viking79 that FF lenses (or even bigger) will always win. If lenses get bigger you just run into other types of problems than when they get smaller. It isn't just about optics, it's also about mechanics, temperature effects, wear&tear and what size/weight is still practical.
Much of the current lens technology (both optical and mechanical) was optimised for FF size film and sensors. Smaller lenses until 10-15 year ago were for film and had relatively low requirements for resolution and distortion; they still have some catching up to do.
Rupert Bottomsworth
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 272
- Reaction score
- 1,589
what is so magical about FF, that Sony now makes a mirrorless camera for it?
what laws of nature dictate that FF is the optimum sensor size?
Comparing the final images is the best way to see which is better, but this can only be done in a very limited range because comparable lenses often don't exist. And often comparable sensors (with same MP number and best available technology) don't exist either. And even if the comparison can be made, people will argue about which one is best, because some designs will be better in the corners while others will be superb in the image center while the corners are crap. All sensors sizes / systems have their pros and cons.
The equivalent of a good and still affordable f/1.4 50mm standard lens for FF is probably not going to happen on m43 (f/0.7 25mm), or it would be very big and expensive. But the other way round, the FF equivalent of a very affordable 25x f/2.8 superzoom lens for 1/2.3" sensor is not going to happen either.
Not more flexible when it comes to size and weight and practical use. Even if you have the 'best' (very big) sensor, a suitable lens for the job might not be available, practical or affordable.
What the heck has that lens got to do with the original posters lens
Am I missing something or are you ;-)
Danny.
Rupert Bottomsworth
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 272
- Reaction score
- 1,589
I think the OP is missing somethingWhat the heck has that lens got to do with the original posters lens
Am I missing something or are you ;-)
Danny.
If you think that having a body that can work in more than one use case is bad, because you are not using the entire X every time you use it, good for you.
But you are doing this all the time with resolution if you crop or downsize, you don't use the max shutter speed, you shoot at softer apertures or use imperfect lenses, which is pretty much all of them.
You don't always drive your car with the everything switched on, the boot fully loaded, and your foot stamped on the accelerator pedal.
Or maybe you do.
Last edited:
LTZ470
Forum Pro
I agree, and if you use the EM1 in place of GX7 then the differences are minute for sure...they are both too large in my opinion with their respective lens...of course going smaller would sacrifice handling which is most important and of course the lens design determines lens size...
bluevellet
Veteran Member
I can assure you when your car engine is running, all the cylinders are in use. It doesn't mean you're climbing steep hills or driving on the fast lanes at all times, but it makes a difference in overall driving. If you don't believe me, just switch to a classic Renault 2-horse power and experience how painfully it is to press the accelator after a red light. Who cares about having AC or the radio on at the same time? You probably don't use the flash and assist lamp on your camera either.
But your comment is not even about using a portion of the power, it's also about adding dinky little wooden wheels to your car (to continue the analogy), because they're cheap, small and available. Yeah, you paid top bucks for great performance for your car, but those wheels will have to do for a while. Will just have to avoid pot holes and fast lanes in the meantime.
So can we drop yet another flawed car analogy? Those are used so often at DPR.
Last edited:
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
Sure, if you have the choice.
There is an inverse relationship between sensor size and general FL shooting range. Between these 2 setups, aside from IBIS and faster AF there is zero reason to go with the Olympus.
There is no optimum. But while most camera buyers choose smaller sensors, they don't choose them over FF for IQ. (I suppose the person I replied to neglected larger formats, but very few of us consider that a viable option).
- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Good post ! They all have their pros & cons. We get too hung up on comparing equivalents, when what matters to any given photographer is the system he/she would actually buy (as you say, there rarely are direct equivalents). And then, many photographers don't limit themselves to a single system; some use multiple systems and many at least complement their primary system with a good compact. Which is simply to say that the guy who travels with an RX10 might have a DSLR for sports or something for landscapes, while the guy with a FF DSLR might have a tiny m43 body and collapsing zoom for travel. There is no best ! There's only heaps of stuff with which to take pictures. And video
- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Yes ... I'm currently considering a FF DSLR with bright tele/macro primes for my dragonfly photography and other nature stuff, a Ricoh GR or something similar for 'walkaround' and/or an m43 system for more general photography (but not for the dragonflies due to lack of suitable lenses and EVF issues).Good post ! They all have their pros & cons. We get too hung up on comparing equivalents, when what matters to any given photographer is the system he/she would actually buy (as you say, there rarely are direct equivalents). And then, many photographers don't limit themselves to a single system; some use multiple systems and many at least complement their primary system with a good compact. Which is simply to say that the guy who travels with an RX10 might have a DSLR for sports or something for landscapes, while the guy with a FF DSLR might have a tiny m43 body and collapsing zoom for travel. There is no best ! There's only heaps of stuff with which to take pictures. And video
I think the Sony A7 cameras are a step in the right direction, and comparing them with m43 size/weight is interesting. For lenses longer than a standard zoom it will be very difficult to compete with m43 on size/weight though, below that they should do fine when the lens range keeps expanding. For me (and I guess for many others) A7(r) currently has too many limitations and flaws, especially regarding native lenses, to consider them as a primary camera system.
Maybe in a few years the Sony A7 series bodies will be as refined as Olympus EM1 now, and there will be a decent set of native lenses to chose from. However, my experience with Sony over many years is that while they make brilliant one-off designs (like DSC-F and RX series) they severely lack commitment to the existing user base.
blue_skies
Forum Pro
I get it, it is "made by Sony"
Link please?
Sony, who is under attack by investors and is being forced to split up/break off entire divisions still manages to:
- save Olympus (financially) from going under
- enable leading sensor technology to it partners (including Olympus)
- innovate, innvovate, innovate
- (You mention DSC-F and RX series, what about Nex, PDAF, A7, their lens line up (YES), QX, BSI sensors (P&S/smartphone), and so on)
- Sony service and support is actually quite good
Olympus EM1 is refined now? And Sony lacks commitment? What kind of argument is this?
The EM1 is often called a 'brick', for it is large and heavy. Built-like-a-brick sounds positive, but it is a very expensive product for a substandard sensor. Despite all the hype, using the m43 "new Sony" sensor between ISO 100 to ISO 1000 is like using the A7 "aging" FF sensor between ISO 400 to ISO 40000.
Start comparing the EM1 against A7 at ISO 400 and up. Heck, compare at ISO 3200 and shoot some side by side shots at same aperture?
Sure, EM1 has fast AF (thanks to Sony's PDAF technology
) but it comes with deep DOF. Maybe ok for m43 users, but the DOF is often deeper than needs be. It has too, it comes with the sensor's small size. Anyone who lauds the EM1 focusing has never used a proper DSLR - for the difference is still quite notable. In fact, EM1 and A7 are closer in focusing accuracy and speed than EM1 and a proper DSLR. My question remains - what are m43 users so afraid of? Dividing the market by sensor size makes a lot of sense, yet m43 users seem to want to dominate all markets. Hint: they can't. Despite all the arguments back and forth, including non-product arguments like above, anyone shooting side-by-side will notice the difference. And hint2: a smaller camera is easier to use - every tried the RX100, or why not one of Sony's cybershot P&S cameras?
How about this, you take your EM1 to a party, and I take my A7 to a party. Then we post our pictures side by side. Guess who gets the most interesting ones? And no, I am not talking photographic abilities, just IQ, shallow DOF, portraits, low light, low noise, fast lenses, fast shutter-speeds to avoid subject blur, resolution and more.
In case you haven't noticed this yet; the A7 can do what the EM1 does, merely by stopping down (it is not diffraction limited). But for the EM1 to do anything like the A7, you'd be shooting WITHOUT a lens, since there are no f/0.7 lenses and faster out there. Last time I tried, shooting without a lens yields very fuzzy images without any detail
Please go shoot ACTION with your EM1. I laugh at some images, because I used to shoot those with MF lenses (yes manual). You can do pre-focus, zone-focus, trap-focus, burst-focus, track-focus, and on. So many techniques exist. Yet all I hear is that in iAuto mode the EM1 gets a higher keeper rate. Well, are you the photographer or is your camera?
Sorry if I am harsh on you - I seem to be dragging in some arguments made by your cohorts, not just you, but a lot of the claims are just silly. Sure, you can be a fan of Oly, their products are nice. But just stop stepping all over Sony because they built BETTER products.
Yes, BETTER. No matter how creative you are as a photographer, the m43 format limits you (YES IT DOES). Arguing the opposite just shows your bias. Loose the bias and begin to talk factually. Hint, I'll say it one more time: the EM1 and A7 don't really compete, they are really more symbiotic. Understanding why and how is the first step into acknowledging strength and weaknesses about both products.
But if you think that they compete, good luck.
Next week the A6000 will be announced. This camera is much closer to m43, and yet, even this camera does not really compete either, imho. Silly arguments.
Try to read and understand proper arguments, rather than keep switching topics and throwing in everything-and-the-kitchen-sink to make an argument. It does not change the outcome, it only changes how we view (all of) you...
Some nice options there. m43 is becoming more & more viable as a DSLR alternative, especially once the f/2.8 tele is available, and then if they can get one or two high quality tele options out. I'm using a D7000 with 16-85, 70-200/2.8, 35/1.8 and 85/1.8. If I were buying all over again, I'd have to seriously consider the EM1. It does a lot of things better than the D7000, but some things worse - a tough enough comparison to want to possibly rent them and compare them. But I'm not doing it over again
Some years from now, once my daughter finishes local schooling and is off to college, I won't have much need for the 70-200/2.8 (school plays, concerts, dance recitals, sports) and will consider a mirrorless kit. I did seriously consider getting just a DSLR with 70-200/2.8 for those things, and mirrorless for everything else, but this was a little over 2 years ago, and none of the mirrorless systems were as viable as they are today. Right now, Olympus is obviously the most complete, but I love what Fuji is doing. They're aggressive, and they're primarily targeting their new system at enthusiast photographers as opposed to a consumer-first mentality.It's interesting because until it came along, you pretty much knew you were going big for IQ or you were going small. (In between meant APS-C). Now there's an in between with FF IQ, particularly if you don't need long teles.
I'm with you 100% there. I switched from Sony to Nikon for a variety of reasons, all centered around my impression that Sony isn't building a cohesive system with photographers in mind. They're building products, and too frequently with consumers in mind. I also have a NEX-5 which I chose over m43 because Sony was promising lenses including a portrait prime, and m43 had no sign of a portrait prime. Several years on, Sony still doesn't have a portrait prime AFAIC (Sony things the 50/1.8 is it) while Oly has both the 45/1.8 and 75/1.8. I'd probably dump the NEX kit in favor of Fuji or Oly, but ultimately found that (a) I don't really like having two systems and (b) the mirrorless is too much of a 'tweener for me; too big to be pocketable, but not as capable as a DSLR ... certainly preferable in some situations, but then handicapped by lens selection. The 'tweener aspect really hit home with I bought the RX100 and found it preferable to the NEX as a compact alternative to my DSLR. The IQ is a close enough match when comparing to the kit zoom on the NEX, neither has an EVF, while the RX100 has a better LCD (minus the tilting), and the RX100 has a better user interface. And fits in my pockets. I'll even carry it alongside my DSLR to have a WA option without having to change lenses.
It's funny - Fuji is doing a system well. Olympus and Panasonic got off to a really slow start, with tons of redundant and uninteresting zooms, but they had a big head start and really filled out their lineups nicely. But I'm getting the impression that any new product development at Nikon and Canon is being done by people who don't really understand the needs of photographers, while the legacy systems are being developed using the same old formulas (good for consistency, but not a lot of innovation). We see great lens updates coming out, but not much creativity in focal lengths for APS-C, for instance.
I think it's a blast to watch it all unfold ... it evolves over years, but is as much fun as watching .. I dunno .. Downton Abbey ? (I don't watch TV !) Who makes money; who builds market share; what new technologies impact photographers; who's trying to protect legacy products; who was keeping the biggest secret; what's the next big flop ? It's a very interesting industry to follow.
- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Similar threads
- User review
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum