A m43 shooter handles a Canon EOS R

confused circle said:

Great Bustard said:

Okapi001 said:

NCV said:

I see FF as a format that can take care of more static things. The high-resolution FF bodies need a tripod to get the most out of them as well as to avoid camera shake problems. This is the go to format when image quality is more important than weight considerations. I see this as the best format for my architecture photography.

Click to expand...

Olympus in hi-res mode is actually better for such a work than any full-format.

Click to expand...

"Any", did you say?

confused circle said:

You get the same resolution (after some downsampling of the 80 mpix raw) with less noise and better details and colours, due to absence of any moire and false colours, caused by bayer demosaicing.

Click to expand...

You mean something like this?





I'll give you a moment while you move your goalposts. In any case, since you have to use a tripod, anyway, to take such photos, you can shoot with a longer focal length and stitch/merge as many exposures as you like to get whatever IQ you want. The pixel-shift tech (of which I'm quite the fan, by the way), is simply a *convenience* -- it allows one to combine multiple exposures with the click of a button rather than having to manually take and combine them. But it doesn't deliver the IQ of multiple manually combined exposure, either.

Look, if you like mFT best, just say you like mFT best. I shoot with a Canon 6D2 -- the laughing stock of FF DSLRs -- but I don't make excuses for it. I got it for a good price, I like it, and that's that. Are there better cameras? You betcha. Simple, isn't it?

Click to expand...

You can't take any of those images with your dogs*** camera nor the R, neither has pixel shift.

Click to expand...

My post was in response to the claim: "Olympus in hi-res mode is actually better for such a work than any full-format."

NCV said:

I am thinking about getting a more up to date FF for architecture. As far as I can see, it seems that up to 24MP the resolution hides some camera shake and poor lens quality. At high MP's one needs a tripod/high shutter speed and top-notch lenses.

I have some research to do. Maybe I will put the question to the Nikon FF forum who were very helpful when I asked about the D700.

Click to expand...

I replaced my worn out D700 with a used D800(<AU$900). I use the same lenses and use it in the same way. I get superior resolution and image quality with no trade off apart from frame rate.........

I agree with you too. I tried the EOS R and it seemed a bit odd and unwieldy to me. Maybe it was a bit heavier than I expected. And yeah, I have used Canons before. I found the Nikon z7 felt and handled better. But then again, I think the E-M1mkII feels and handles better than the z7 too.

But for all the Canon lovers, really nice new camera, with some nice initial lenses and the adapters are really nice, but I'd think only 2 are needed.

For all the Nikon lovers, the z7 and probably the z6 are really nice new cameras, with a decent lens lineup initially, but it needs to grow.

For all the anti-m43 people, why are you reading this? Don't use a m43 because the tiny sensor is no better than your phone, so quit using your phone too. Enjoy the new options in FF mirrorless and by all means throw an adapter on there so you can use existing native lenses for the Canon or Nikon.

In the end, I think the Fuji X-T3 is the best camera announced of it, the Canon, and the Nikons. And that is without IBIS even, which is no different than the Canon. It is a much better tool than the Canon to me. Competes very well against it, despite the sensor size, but for those with size deficiency syndrome, MF is better and you should get one, but it is probably too manual for ya.

Tango 55 said:

Today I had the opportunity to handle the new EOS R at Nelson Photo in San Diego, California. My first reaction was "this thing is incredibly heavy" when paired with the 24-105/f4 kit lens attached, which makes it a really poor choice for general travel photography (what I do most of the time).

Although I thought the size was okay, the general ergonomics left some to be desired (the Nikon Z7 felt better in my hands), to the point of saying "how could Canon do this?!"

Some positives: I liked the customizable lens ring and the strap lugs... ;-) , but not much more than that.

Although I'm sure the EOS R takes technically very good pictures, I left the store loving my m43 cameras and lenses more than ever before, with the certainty of having chosen a fantastic system that I'll keep enjoying and recommending for years to come.

Cheers,

Ricky

Click to expand...

I also got the opportunity to play with the EOS R last week and I dicided not to get one either, but my issue was it's little too small for my taste, ( besides the numbers on the spec everyone already know without the need to touch the camera), so going back to my 1DsIII, 1Dx and D850. LOL. and I do own a OMD E-M10 II also.

NCV said:

Member said:

Member said:

T

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I am thinking about getting a more up to date FF for architecture. As far as I can see, it seems that up to 24MP the resolution hides some camera shake and poor lens quality. At high MP's one needs a tripod/high shutter speed and top-notch lenses.

Click to expand...

Don't know about the camera shake, but the higher MP's do usually bring the best even in the old lenses, and not the other way around. Tripod; sometimes you do need one, when the shutter is slow or you need to show some flow (like the running water and such), but not always.

Member said:

I have some research to do. Maybe I will put the question to the Nikon FF forum who were very helpful when I asked about the D700.

Click to expand...

Adaptors are rather annoying if you are using a big lens plus a teleconverter.

Many Canon wildlife shooters have 300/400/500/600mm primes and often use them with the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. When you stack 3 lens mounts in series there is a lot of movement between the lens and the camera body - rotation and flex. And the bigger the lens the more annoying is the movement.

And when you have a mix of native and adapted lenses there’s an adapter that needs to be switched in and out.

So even if AF performance is statisfatory, the adapted lens ‘experience’ is not always fun.

Peter

Okapi001 said:

It's actually funny, this obsession by some with sensor size (and noise). It's like back in the film days photographers would think a 6x6 Lubitel or Pentacon Six is better than Nikon F, because of better resolution and less noise.

Click to expand...

Actually, this is correct. However, the 6x6 will not suit some use cases like e.g. sports. The choice of lenses is also less than for the Nikon F or your example.

The exact same is true for MFT vs. Nikon Z or Canon R: MFT allows you to access (purchase) and carry a lens range out of reach for FF - e.g. 7-14mm, 14-140mm, 100-400mm in a small bag covering super-WA to super-tele at something like 2500 Euros. Add some 42 1.7 or so for your portraitture and your are covered for almost everything, still using a small bag and comparatively small budget.

Great Bustard said:

Ab Latchin said:

Great Bustard said:

Ab Latchin said:

BirdShooter7 said:

To better understand Canon's lens releases it would probably help to read the white paper that they released with the launch of the R. In the context of the white paper the lenses make a lot of sense.

Click to expand...

I just flicked through it. It doesn't explain why the two main primes are an f1.2 $2k lens and a 35mm f1.8 macro... Then a 28-70 f2 for $3k and their general f4 zoom.

Compare that to Nikon's very sensible 50mm f1.8, 35mm f1.8 and a 24-70f4, all well sized, then for boasting they have an f0.95 on the roadmap. But their trio of lenses cover a great deal of general photography.

Click to expand...

Both Canon's and Nikon's initial mirrorless lens offerings are stellar, in my opinion. Canon's offerings are proof-of-concept, that is, they show what the new mount is capable of. For less audacious lenses, just use their current EF lenses which work seemlessly on the R with an adapter -- no loss in performance whether that be IQ or operation. Nikon, on the other hand, as you said, have released some excellent and practical lenses for their new mirrorless mount that have what look to be class-leading performance.

In my opinion, both companies have done an outstanding job with their initial lens offerings. They simply had different priorities. Both philosophies greatly appeal to me, actually!

Click to expand...

Proof of concept is fine. In fact it reminds me of Olympus approach with 43rds. Like I said their proof of concept will appeal mostly to their base, because they already have the ef lenses. Maybe that is a good approach, but compare the Sony 50mm f1.8 or the Nikon 50mm f1.8 plus body to the Canon... Well you would have to use their old lenses plus adapter.

Click to expand...

Is there a problem with using EF lenses and the adapter, given that they will work as well with the adapter on the R as they do on DSLRs?

Great Bustard said:

Not a world beating strategy, one aimed at moving their own DSLR crowd over.

Click to expand...

Well, anyone wanting the best 50 / 1.2 around and/or a 28-70 / 2 might be won over, but Canon's mediocre sensor (with respect to the competitions' FF sensors) is more the issue than the lenses.

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard said:

While Canon only has one prime, whose performance seems to be okay at best...

Click to expand...

A relatively small and light 35mm f/1.8 (17 / 0.9 mFT equivalent) with 1:2 macro and IS for $500, well, that's pretty cool.

Click to expand...

Not judging by their charts. It is very mediocre.

Click to expand...

Looks pretty damned good to me for a 17 / 0.9 mFT equivalent with 1:2 macro at $500:



I'm thinking that a 17 / 0.9 on mFT wouldn't look quite so good at 20 lp/mm and 60 lp/mm wide open.

Click to expand...

Here it is:



So, the 17mm/1.2 is clearly less sharp in the center (wide open), but pretty similar in the corners. Given that you mount the 35mm/1.8 on a 30Mpx sensor, it will resolve significantly more for less than half the price. I really think the prices of the "PRO" and "Leica" lenses should be halved as soon as possible, as they are simply not competitive in the current market.

rsf3127 said:

NCV said:

My camera dealer tells me that a lot of amateurs who have gone for the Sony FF system based on the FF mirrorless hype, soon tire of it when they realise that it is not the best fit for their photography. He tells me they mostly go back to M43 or Fuji.

Click to expand...

I've done that. Could not justify investing in expensive and BIG zoom lenses or being constrained by prime lenses with my A7.

Click to expand...

Which big zoom lenses are you talking about?

rsf3127 said:

Did not like the colors very much for portraits, specially in artificial light. My ancient A-mount cameras did a better job on this. Got used to the UI after many years using NEX. But never loved it.

The only thing that I miss is the ability to use my beloved SR-mount lenses in their native FL. But as soon as I pick my very good Olympus lenses that are also moderately sized and take them with me to a hike I am reminded of the reason I chose M4/3.

Almost went for a XT-20, but the good Fuji lenses are exorbitantly expensive and not much smaller than the Sony counterparts.

Click to expand...

Please, be more specific. which Fuji lenses are "exorbitantly expensive" and big compared to which M43 ones. I asked the OP a similar question, but he never bothered to answer. Somehow, I have trouble to see what are you talking about.

Cornu said:

Okapi001 said:

It's actually funny, this obsession by some with sensor size (and noise). It's like back in the film days photographers would think a 6x6 Lubitel or Pentacon Six is better than Nikon F, because of better resolution and less noise.

Click to expand...

Actually, this is correct. However, the 6x6 will not suit some use cases like e.g. sports.

Click to expand...

Taken on a 6x6 Roleiflex



--
Ride easy, William.
Bob

Facepalm.

Martin.au said:

Facepalm.

Click to expand...

more like a right hook by the looks of it

Wu Jiaqiu said:

Martin.au said:

Facepalm.

Click to expand...

more like a right hook by the looks of it

Click to expand...

That's the preferred way of facepalming here.

confused circle said:

Great Bustard said:

Okapi001 said:

NCV said:

I see FF as a format that can take care of more static things. The high-resolution FF bodies need a tripod to get the most out of them as well as to avoid camera shake problems. This is the go to format when image quality is more important than weight considerations. I see this as the best format for my architecture photography.

Click to expand...

Olympus in hi-res mode is actually better for such a work than any full-format.

Click to expand...

"Any", did you say?

confused circle said:

You get the same resolution (after some downsampling of the 80 mpix raw) with less noise and better details and colours, due to absence of any moire and false colours, caused by bayer demosaicing.

Click to expand...

You mean something like this?





I'll give you a moment while you move your goalposts. In any case, since you have to use a tripod, anyway, to take such photos, you can shoot with a longer focal length and stitch/merge as many exposures as you like to get whatever IQ you want. The pixel-shift tech (of which I'm quite the fan, by the way), is simply a *convenience* -- it allows one to combine multiple exposures with the click of a button rather than having to manually take and combine them. But it doesn't deliver the IQ of multiple manually combined exposure, either.

Look, if you like mFT best, just say you like mFT best. I shoot with a Canon 6D2 -- the laughing stock of FF DSLRs -- but I don't make excuses for it. I got it for a good price, I like it, and that's that. Are there better cameras? You betcha. Simple, isn't it?

Click to expand...

You can't take any of those images with your dogs*** camera nor the R, neither has pixel shift.

Click to expand...

As he pointed out, he can, and better. It's just somewhat less convenient, but not actually enormously so with a static image, which is all pixel shift is suited for anyway.

--
Ride easy, William.
Bob

bobn2 said:

Cornu said:

Okapi001 said:

It's actually funny, this obsession by some with sensor size (and noise). It's like back in the film days photographers would think a 6x6 Lubitel or Pentacon Six is better than Nikon F, because of better resolution and less noise.

Click to expand...

Actually, this is correct. However, the 6x6 will not suit some use cases like e.g. sports.

Click to expand...

Taken on a 6x6 Roleiflex

Click to expand...

I have taken 6x6 photos on a Rolleiflex clone and neither of them had halos (see the legs of the KO boxer). The photo looks like done with a cellphone from a print or so.

kolyy said:

Which big zoom lenses are you talking about?

Click to expand...

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO Lens $1,199.00 3.11 x 4.17" / 78.9 x 105.8 mm Weight1.17 lb / 534 g

Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM Lens $2,198.00 3.48 x 4.79" / 88.5 x 121.6 mmWeight1.50 lb / 680 g

Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm f/4 $1,348.00 3.07 x 3.88" / 78 x 98.5 mmWeight18.27 oz / 518 g

Sony FE 12-24mm f/4 G 3.43 x 4.62" / 87 x 117.4 mm Weight1.24 lb / 565 g

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm f/4-5.6 Lens $649.00 2.22 x 1.95" / 56.5 x 49.5 mmWeight5.47 oz / 155 g

Sony FE 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G OSS Lens $1,198.00 3.31 x 5.65" / 84 x 143.5 mm Weight1.88 lb / 854 g

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm f/4-5.6 R Lens $149.00 2.50 x 3.27" / 63.5 x 83 mm Weight6.70 oz / 190 g

kolyy said:

Please, be more specific. which Fuji lenses are "exorbitantly expensive" and big compared to which M43 ones. I asked the OP a similar question, but he never bothered to answer. Somehow, I have trouble to see what are you talking about.

Click to expand...

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Lens $599.00 2.95 x 4.65" / 75 x 118 mmWeight20.46 oz / 580 g

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm f/4-5.6 R Lens $149.00 2.50 x 3.27" / 63.5 x 83 mm Weight6.70 oz / 190 g

Fujifilm XC 15-45mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS PZ Lens $299.00 2.46 x 1.74" / 62.6 x 44.2 mmWeight4.76 oz / 135 g

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 EZ Lens $249.00 2.40 x 0.90" / 61 x 22.9 mm Weight3.2 oz / 91 g

Fujifilm XF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR Lens with 1.4x Teleconverter Kit $2,048.00 3.73 x 8.29" / 94.8 x 210.5 mmWeight3.03 lb / 1375 g

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II Lens $449.00 2.72 x 4.59" / 69 x 116.5 mm Weight14.92 oz / 423 g

This is was came out of my mind. There is certainly more. You could do your own research.

Cornu said:

bobn2 said:

Cornu said:

Okapi001 said:

It's actually funny, this obsession by some with sensor size (and noise). It's like back in the film days photographers would think a 6x6 Lubitel or Pentacon Six is better than Nikon F, because of better resolution and less noise.

Click to expand...

Actually, this is correct. However, the 6x6 will not suit some use cases like e.g. sports.

Click to expand...

Taken on a 6x6 Roleiflex

Click to expand...

I have taken 6x6 photos on a Rolleiflex clone and neither of them had halos (see the legs of the KO boxer).

Click to expand...

You mean Sonny Liston?

Cornu said:

The photo looks like done with a cellphone from a print or so.

Click to expand...

Very likely there's been some PP along the way. The original very definitely was taken with a Rollei and not a cellphone.

--
Ride easy, William.
Bob

rsf3127 said:

kolyy said:

Which big zoom lenses are you talking about?

Click to expand...

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO Lens $1,199.00 3.11 x 4.17" / 78.9 x 105.8 mm Weight1.17 lb / 534 g

Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM Lens $2,198.00 3.48 x 4.79" / 88.5 x 121.6 mmWeight1.50 lb / 680 g

Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm f/4 $1,348.00 3.07 x 3.88" / 78 x 98.5 mmWeight18.27 oz / 518 g

Sony FE 12-24mm f/4 G 3.43 x 4.62" / 87 x 117.4 mm Weight1.24 lb / 565 g

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm f/4-5.6 Lens $649.00 2.22 x 1.95" / 56.5 x 49.5 mmWeight5.47 oz / 155 g

Sony FE 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G OSS Lens $1,198.00 3.31 x 5.65" / 84 x 143.5 mm Weight1.88 lb / 854 g

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm f/4-5.6 R Lens $149.00 2.50 x 3.27" / 63.5 x 83 mm Weight6.70 oz / 190 g

rsf3127 said:

Please, be more specific. which Fuji lenses are "exorbitantly expensive" and big compared to which M43 ones. I asked the OP a similar question, but he never bothered to answer. Somehow, I have trouble to see what are you talking about.

Click to expand...

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Lens $599.00 2.95 x 4.65" / 75 x 118 mmWeight20.46 oz / 580 g

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm f/4-5.6 R Lens $149.00 2.50 x 3.27" / 63.5 x 83 mm Weight6.70 oz / 190 g

Fujifilm XC 15-45mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS PZ Lens $299.00 2.46 x 1.74" / 62.6 x 44.2 mmWeight4.76 oz / 135 g

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 EZ Lens $249.00 2.40 x 0.90" / 61 x 22.9 mm Weight3.2 oz / 91 g

Fujifilm XF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR Lens with 1.4x Teleconverter Kit $2,048.00 3.73 x 8.29" / 94.8 x 210.5 mmWeight3.03 lb / 1375 g

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II Lens $449.00 2.72 x 4.59" / 69 x 116.5 mm Weight14.92 oz / 423 g

This is was came out of my mind. There is certainly more. You could do your own research.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. Now I see - in many of these examples you are comparing very different lenses. You have even chosen a higher f-number for the smaller format in some cases.

For example, you seem to think that the Oly 9-18mm/4-5.6 should be compared to the Sony 16-35mm/4. I own both lenses and they are extremely far away from each other. The Oly is nice and small, and I love it for that, but it is very, very far from the Sony in terms of sharpness, contrast, DoF control, low light capability, build quality and autofocus. If you are happy with the output of the Oly 9-18mm, then you should choose the APS-C 10-18mm/4 for Sony, even on FF. It's small and light and even in crop mode on a FF camera it will match the IQ of the 9-18mm. Of course, the Sony 16-35mm/4 should be correctly compared to the Oly 7-14/2.8, which is a much better match in terms of price, weight and IQ.

Let me update your comparisons according to my taste, so I can show you what the differences are in my view:

Sony:

Oly 7-14mm/2.8 vs Sony 16-35mm/4

Oly 9-18mm/4-5.6 vs Sony 10-18mm/4 (APS-C)

Oly 40-150mm/2.8 vs Sony 70-300mm/4-5.6

Oly 40-150mm/4-5.6 vs Sony 55-210/4.5-6.3 (APS-C)

Fuji:

Oly 40-150mm/4-5.6 vs Fuji 50-230mm/4.5-6.7

?? vs Fuji 55-200mm/3.5-4.8

Oly 14-42mm/3.5-5.6EZ vs Fuji 15-45mm/3.5-5.6

Pana 100-400mm/4-6.3 vs Fuji 100-400mm/4.5-5.6 + 1.4x TC

Oly 75-300mm/4.8-6.7 vs ??

As for Sony, I acknowledge that the Sony 55-210mm in crop mode is probably an inferior choice to the Oly 40-150mm/4-5.6, while being a bit larger and more expensive. But it is certainly more appropriate than the FE 70-300mm. A cheap, compact a good telephoto option is still missing in the E-mount system. The rest is pretty equal, I think.

As for Fuji, a long, but compact and affordable telephoto option is clearly missing. There is a big gap between the 50-230mm and the 100-400mm. On the other hand, an affordable counterpart to the great Fuji 55-200mm/3.5-4.8 is missing in M43. In any case, I don't see the substantiation for the "exorbitantly expensive" description.

Or course, there are many other choices in all three system and some cannot be matched by others. I see quite a bit of variation in which one is the best value. M43 is strong in the cheap and compact telephoto realm, but quite often a poor value when faster lenses are concerned.

Taste is something very subjective.

However, you asked me about FF Sony lenses, not APS-c. I have had those APS-c lenses and I do not like them at all. Bigger and worse than M4/3 counterparts, and not inexpensive either.

As for Fuji, all the lenses that I mentioned are bigger AND more expensive tham its M4/3 FL matches.

Unfortunately, there are holes in the line up of both, but Fuji has much less options than M4/3. Even though I almost went for Fuji for the very good cameras and UI, I do not regret my choice for M4/3. I can spend the rest of the money on vacation.

rsf3127 said:

However, you asked me about FF Sony lenses, not APS-c.

Click to expand...

Actually no, I have just asked you to clarify what you meant by those "expensive and big lenses", in comparison with the "good and moderately sized Olympus lenses". I thought that there were some good and moderately sized zooms for the E-mount as well (both FF and APS-C). You also said there was no other choice than to use these big, expensive zooms or be constrained with primes. I showed you that there is such a choice.

Granted, if you'd end up using only APS-C lenses on a FF camera, than it's better to buy an APS-C (or M43) camera. But if you alternate between the 7-14mm/2.8 and the 9-18mm on M43, depending on occasion I guess, you can do exactly the same on the E-mount, by using the larger 16-35/4 or the smaller 10-18/4, depending on priorities.

rsf3127 said:

I have had those APS-c lenses and I do not like them at all. Bigger and worse than M4/3 counterparts, and not inexpensive either.

Click to expand...

Do you seriously say that the Sony 10-18/4 is worse than the Olympus 9-18mm/4-5.6?

rsf3127 said:

As for Fuji, all the lenses that I mentioned are bigger AND more expensive tham its M4/3 FL matches.

Click to expand...

The problem is that you have not picked the appropriate matches in two of the three examples. You have picked the cheapest Olympus telephoto zoom, but matched it with the midrange option from Fuji. The Fuji 50-230mm/4.5-6.7 is the correct one. It is still a bit bigger, heavier and a bit more expensive than the bargain priced Oly 50-140mm/4-5.6, but it also has a longer reach. I am not sure how you can call this pretty good $300 lens (I owned one) "exorbitantly priced". The same goes for the $300 Fuji 15-45mm, which is arguably a better deal than the mediocre Olympus 14-42mm EZ for $250.

Yes, there is no match for the Oly 75-300mm from Fujifilm. The 100-400mm is in a different class, comparable to the Panasonic 100-400mm. If you want a similar lens from Olympus, there is none. There is also no similar lens to the Fujifilm 55-200mm/3.5-4.8 from Olympus, you have to go for the 50-140/2.8, which is twice the price ("exorbitantly priced"?), if you want something faster than F4-5.6,

So, there is no white and black, I have owned cameras and lenses from all of these systems (and I have already sold my Fujifilm stuff). All too often people come and say that M43 is much cheaper, smaller and better, but that does not match reality, as I see it. In some cases it's true, in some cases not at all.

rsf3127 said:

Unfortunately, there are holes in the line up of both, but Fuji has much less options than M4/3. Even though I almost went for Fuji for the very good cameras and UI, I do not regret my choice for M4/3. I can spend the rest of the money on vacation.

Click to expand...

Ok