LandscapeWhisperer
Well-known member
- Messages
- 189
- Reaction score
- 96
Just curious, did you try closing down to f/8 or f/11?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Sony FF vs Olympus EM1-II: Creative choices vs. user experience
- Thread starter Auf Reisen
- Start date
D
Donald B
Guest
Thought you would like the different graphs 
Im getting a bit bored sitting on Job Keeper Payment. been 4 months now ,at least the money is good.
DoN
--
Olympus EM1mk2, Sony A7r2
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1 em5mk2
Im getting a bit bored sitting on Job Keeper Payment. been 4 months now ,at least the money is good.DoN
--
Olympus EM1mk2, Sony A7r2
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1 em5mk2
Last edited:
James Stirling
Forum Pro
Hope the work things gets sorted out long term Don. The illness and deaths has been bad enough , but the economic disaster is just shaping up. Crazy times :-( . The Sony is a great lens though I am not sure it matters much the edge performance of the Nikon is amazing . I am quite happy that Nikon went the F/1.8 route first as personally I have zero need for F/1.2 or F/1.4 FF lenses.Thought you would like the different graphs
DoN
I did not notice the release of the Samyang 45mm F/1.8 .Though based on my experience with the superb 135mm and the wee dinky 35mm F/2.8 I would happily look at it. Unfortunately the TZE-01 adapter does not support the Samyang 35mm F/2.8 . It mounts, focuses but the aperture is a random number generator
D
Donald B
Guest
I couldn't see the benefits of the 1.4 lens neither ,I wanted to keep a small FF system and very happy with my 2 lens. what surprised me was the 85 1.8 for shooting my daughters netballHope the work things gets sorted out long term Don. The illness and deaths has been bad enough , but the economic disaster is just shaping up. Crazy times :-( . The Sony is a great lens though I am not sure it matters much the edge performance of the Nikon is amazing . I am quite happy that Nikon went the F/1.8 route first as personally I have zero need for F/1.2 or F/1.4 FF lenses.Thought you would like the different graphs
DoN
its awesome for stills and video shooting at f2 to 2.8 looks unreal the subject separation is fantastic ,a very pleasant surprise. i thought id never give that job to the sony over my olympus but the beautiful colours smooth through the graduations look life like out of camera. sure if i played with LUTS with the olympus i could get close. but im just not into processing much these days. the 45 samyang is an awesome lens just as sharp as my 85 and super small and light 162 grams $400 AUD I got mine for.Impulses
Forum Pro
Any random sample or like a landscape (large neighborhood park might be the best I can do there right now) or something closer or...?Can you post a sample of the a7r4 35 1.8 and em5 iii 17 1.2 from the same position?I just got an A7R IV along with a Tamron 17-28 and Sony 35/1.8 + 20/1.8 G, for some of the same reasons you're mulling over (C-AF, lens choices & DoF control w/wides, astro)... I always wanted that Voigtlander 10.5/0.95 but the weight and MF kept my away; the Sony is lighter, better corrected for astro, and sharper wide open so the temptation was too much! My intention is precisely to replace my PL8-18 & 17/1.2 but I'm still experimenting with the Sony gear and still in lockdown so we'll see... Haven't sold the former yet, gotta satisfy my own curiosity 1st.
If there's any comparisons or specific info you're looking for feel free to ask. I don't intend to sell any of my other M4/3 gear either (smaller primes, bodies, teles, etc.; all on my profile gear list), tho I might give away the PL25 II to a family member, specially if I get the Samyang 45/1.8... The PL25 II could actually be an interesting choice that address #1-3 for you without the bulk of something like the 17/1.2 btw, that's half the reason I got it even tho I prefer the latter's FL. I'd borrowed the first version and knew what I was getting, there's more optical compromises w/it than with something like the 17/1.2 but I like how it tows that line.
Many of the M4/3 teles I've got and love (be it zooms or primes) would be hard to replace with anything even close to the same size in any other system/format, and I often use them on a GX850 alongside my E-M5 II/III so mixing systems didn't seem as unnatural or as much of a headache to me as it might seem to others, I guess. Right now what I think I'll miss most when I don't bring the E-M5 III along will be the IBIS for video and/or dragging the shutter out a lot with a wide lens. 'Course the 61MP A7R is like having HR mode handheld...
There's some workarounds for manual focus bracketing w/Sony but it's a kludge compared to Oly's implementation. I'm gonna experiment with using their BT remote to do so at some point... Nothing like Live Composite w/Sony either.
I was really happy with the PL8-18 FWIW (I even like it's build slightly better than the Oly Pro's), and with the 17/1.2 too tho that one is a bit more of a size concession than what I would've liked... But it did keep me from jumping formats for a while and a lot of the Sony lenses I've been looking at weren't even out 2+ years ago. The Sony 35/1.8 being smaller was part of it's appeal tbh. I'm eyeing the Samyang 75/1.8 too, which is about the size of the Oly 75/1.8 but lighter... Again tho, I'm more likely to be using that Oly 75mm and the Pana 42.5/1.7 (and the 35-100, 100-300 II, etc).
Sony and Oly menus both suck IMO, both offer a great degree of customization, neither is as intuitive as say Panasonic (who also happens to have the better touch implementation, tho high end Sony/Oly bodies now have joysticks); those things don't really bother me once I have a camera dialed in to work how I like tho. I did take long look at Nikon because I like that Z 14-30mm f4, but their 20-35-85 primes are all larger and a little pricier without much of any optical benefit (that I could see based on reviews from DPR, Cameralabs, etc.), and there's not much 3rd party glass yet.
I'm of no use when it comes to opining on those super zooms since I never liked them a ton, but I think they're always a compromise regardless of format and if the point is to go light I'd probably just grab a Pana 14-140 II. I think the older M4/3 10x zooms are somewhere underrated these days (I've actually used that Pana since I bought it as a gift for my mother btw), but I dunno how that Tamron would really compare with the similarly sized Oly. I'd listen to other's opinion of the Oly, heh. I just got used to having a small tele on a 2nd body since I like shooting UWA/wide so much with my main. I don't think the Tamron squeezes out as much from the format as the Oly, even if has the DoF control advantage at times and isn't any larger.
That Oly offer for a free f1.2 prime is pretty killer, they must really wanna clear out old E-M1 II stock...I don't think a lot of the older Sony options are as well sealed as some of the more recent ones btw (they claimed weather sealing on lenses that didn't even have a rear gasket /facepalm), but I'm not about to purposely put that to the test heh. I never had any complaints about that with my M4/3 gear, tho I mostly had internal zooming lenses or primes which are easier to seal. Oly seems to go to great lengths on this with some of their extending zooms (based on Imaging Resource articles at least).
No wrong choices here really, it's more about preference and how you see things working for you. I don't imagine there's a ton of people shooting a tiny 16MP body alongside a 61MP one (even amongst the few hobbyists that'll carry two at times), but it works for me and I enjoy it. There's numerous reasons some people will mix systems/formats and those that do often seem less cantankerous about it all, specially after the honeymoon period with either is over.We'll probably never have a wider variety of choices in this market than we do today, so enjoy it while it lasts. Imma stop rambling now...
Interesting comments
D
Donald B
Guest
bobn2
Forum Pro
Well, it might be a triangle, but not an 'exposure triangle'. 'Aperature' isn't a thing, and ISO isn't an exposure parameter.
--
Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?
Last edited:
bobn2
Forum Pro
Repel all boarders.I understand that. I was comparing the percentages for center compared to boarder to corner not specifically the values but the fall offDon, you can't compare MTF results from two completely different sources. Very few of these web testers take the care to standardise their test protocols with any rigour. For instance, I know that OpticalLimits ( the one below) does its tests on JPEGs with sharpening applied. Different cameras, different sharpening, different MTF results. The best you can do is compare results from the same tester and trust that at least their method is self-consistent.doesnt look any better to me
Don
More seriously, the different testers vary a lot with respect to edge and corner sharpness. The reason, I suspect is that an MTF produces data for the meridional and saggital planes, which can be quite different in the corners, if the lens has astigmatism or coma. These bar charts have to combine the two, and I don't think the method if combination is consistent. Some will just take the meridional, others will average them is some way. Frankly all these tests a broad brush efforts, and if you compare different testers, there's almost nothing to be learned.
One clue about the different methods is the way they show the diffraction fall-off at small apertures, which should be pretty common, no matter the lens, because it doesn't depend on the lens formula at all. In this case the two lenses show very different diffraction fall-off. The Sony, according to Optical Limits. shows no diffraction fall-off, which is impossible.
--
Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?
Anything really, something with around 1/3rd to half a stop clipped highlights outdoor with lots of detail, hand-held, f5.6 on both and closer to equivathence too? something indoor close to an object so we can get a feel of 1.2 vs 1.8 dof difference on the respective platforms would be very useful, and the rawsAny random sample or like a landscape (large neighborhood park might be the best I can do there right now) or something closer or...?Can you post a sample of the a7r4 35 1.8 and em5 iii 17 1.2 from the same position?I just got an A7R IV along with a Tamron 17-28 and Sony 35/1.8 + 20/1.8 G, for some of the same reasons you're mulling over (C-AF, lens choices & DoF control w/wides, astro)... I always wanted that Voigtlander 10.5/0.95 but the weight and MF kept my away; the Sony is lighter, better corrected for astro, and sharper wide open so the temptation was too much! My intention is precisely to replace my PL8-18 & 17/1.2 but I'm still experimenting with the Sony gear and still in lockdown so we'll see... Haven't sold the former yet, gotta satisfy my own curiosity 1st.
If there's any comparisons or specific info you're looking for feel free to ask. I don't intend to sell any of my other M4/3 gear either (smaller primes, bodies, teles, etc.; all on my profile gear list), tho I might give away the PL25 II to a family member, specially if I get the Samyang 45/1.8... The PL25 II could actually be an interesting choice that address #1-3 for you without the bulk of something like the 17/1.2 btw, that's half the reason I got it even tho I prefer the latter's FL. I'd borrowed the first version and knew what I was getting, there's more optical compromises w/it than with something like the 17/1.2 but I like how it tows that line.
Many of the M4/3 teles I've got and love (be it zooms or primes) would be hard to replace with anything even close to the same size in any other system/format, and I often use them on a GX850 alongside my E-M5 II/III so mixing systems didn't seem as unnatural or as much of a headache to me as it might seem to others, I guess. Right now what I think I'll miss most when I don't bring the E-M5 III along will be the IBIS for video and/or dragging the shutter out a lot with a wide lens. 'Course the 61MP A7R is like having HR mode handheld...
There's some workarounds for manual focus bracketing w/Sony but it's a kludge compared to Oly's implementation. I'm gonna experiment with using their BT remote to do so at some point... Nothing like Live Composite w/Sony either.
I was really happy with the PL8-18 FWIW (I even like it's build slightly better than the Oly Pro's), and with the 17/1.2 too tho that one is a bit more of a size concession than what I would've liked... But it did keep me from jumping formats for a while and a lot of the Sony lenses I've been looking at weren't even out 2+ years ago. The Sony 35/1.8 being smaller was part of it's appeal tbh. I'm eyeing the Samyang 75/1.8 too, which is about the size of the Oly 75/1.8 but lighter... Again tho, I'm more likely to be using that Oly 75mm and the Pana 42.5/1.7 (and the 35-100, 100-300 II, etc).
Sony and Oly menus both suck IMO, both offer a great degree of customization, neither is as intuitive as say Panasonic (who also happens to have the better touch implementation, tho high end Sony/Oly bodies now have joysticks); those things don't really bother me once I have a camera dialed in to work how I like tho. I did take long look at Nikon because I like that Z 14-30mm f4, but their 20-35-85 primes are all larger and a little pricier without much of any optical benefit (that I could see based on reviews from DPR, Cameralabs, etc.), and there's not much 3rd party glass yet.
I'm of no use when it comes to opining on those super zooms since I never liked them a ton, but I think they're always a compromise regardless of format and if the point is to go light I'd probably just grab a Pana 14-140 II. I think the older M4/3 10x zooms are somewhere underrated these days (I've actually used that Pana since I bought it as a gift for my mother btw), but I dunno how that Tamron would really compare with the similarly sized Oly. I'd listen to other's opinion of the Oly, heh. I just got used to having a small tele on a 2nd body since I like shooting UWA/wide so much with my main. I don't think the Tamron squeezes out as much from the format as the Oly, even if has the DoF control advantage at times and isn't any larger.
That Oly offer for a free f1.2 prime is pretty killer, they must really wanna clear out old E-M1 II stock...
No wrong choices here really, it's more about preference and how you see things working for you. I don't imagine there's a ton of people shooting a tiny 16MP body alongside a 61MP one (even amongst the few hobbyists that'll carry two at times), but it works for me and I enjoy it. There's numerous reasons some people will mix systems/formats and those that do often seem less cantankerous about it all, specially after the honeymoon period with either is over.
Interesting comments
Many thanks
Yes, but lossless compression of RAW file I guess works like the one from TIFF or in a similar way.
For graphics where colors are uniforms on large areas (As an example a geological map), lossless compression works really well, because many pixels has exactly the same color and can be "grouped" to reduce file size. So is good to save the print files as a Tiff and the resulting file is not very big and the prints look good and color accurate.
But for photographs where color transitions are a lot, lossless compression as TIFF is not very efficient and lossy compression as JPG works better.
But when I look at RAW files I really do not see any advantage in file size using large formats and the differences are more related to the way each manufacturer saves and compresses the raw.
From the camera I know and use the size of the file are more depending on the brand than from the sensor sie or MPx count:
- Olympus and Nikon raw are quite similar in size given a similar MPx count of the sensor (ex. D500 Vs OMD 1 Mkii, both 20 MPx) about 20 Mb each file or 24Mb for the files from the 750 (24Mpx)
- Fuji files are much larger, with files being about 50-55Mb (XT-4, 26 Mpx) and 115 Mb (GFX 50R, 50 MPx)
, but I would not choose because of this, Fuji cameras are quite niceOn JPG the size reduction of files from large sensors becomes obvious with the files from the GFX 50R being only double as large as a Fine-JPG from the Olympus OMD1 Mkii.
But having been a scientist I would never make any statement based on such a comparison as the variables that have an influence on the final results are really a lot.
And as each manufacturer has different compression and noise reduction setting for the out of camera JPG it is not really possible to do such a comparison. To do a comparison someone should try to shoot the same picture with different cameras, import raw in Photoshop, and convert them to JPG using the same setting and then compare the results.
Stefano
bobn2
Forum Pro
It depends what you mean by it being better. If colour transitions are a lot, and the compression does away with them, then you are losing real information which may be of use.
You don't see any advantage, others might. There are two types of lossy compression of raws. One recognises that the amaont of shot noise increases as the signal increases, and as a result raw files are overencoded, so reduces that overencoding. The other actually reduces fine detail in circumstances where it might not be visible, in the same way as JPEG compression. They have different effects.
Nikon gives you options on raw compression. If you use the completely uncompressed raws the files are big, but there is no penalty for losslessly compressed.
Auf Reisen
Leading Member
- Messages
- 854
- Reaction score
- 1,192
Could you perhaps start a new thread to discuss compression technology? Thank you!
bobn2
Forum Pro
Why would that be? It isn't wildly off-topic, it's a discussion that arose out of discussion of your original topic. Further, at the rate this thread is going, it's not in danger of filling up and depriving people of the opportunity to discuss as they wish.
cosmicnode
Veteran Member
If you do decide to get a E- M1, i would suggest the MK3 due to the joystick and custom my menu amongst other features which make it more usable than the MK2, you also have the very usable 50mp hand held high res mode or 80mp tripod high res.
LandscapeWhisperer
Well-known member
- Messages
- 189
- Reaction score
- 96
This explains what I was referring to:
The Exposure Triangle: Understanding How Aperture, Shutter Speed, and ISO Work Together
Don't worry, this isn't a geometry lesson. The exposure triangle is a common way of associating the three variables that determine the exposure of a photograph: aperture, shutter speed, and ISO. One must balance all three of these to achieve a desired result, an adjustment of one requiring...
fstoppers.com
and thanks for catching the spelling error. I seem to repeat that error for some reason.
D
Donald B
Guest
But wouldn't the lens mount being bigger and the lens closer to the sensor make for larger fall off in the boarders and corners ?Repel all boarders.I understand that. I was comparing the percentages for center compared to boarder to corner not specifically the values but the fall offDon, you can't compare MTF results from two completely different sources. Very few of these web testers take the care to standardise their test protocols with any rigour. For instance, I know that OpticalLimits ( the one below) does its tests on JPEGs with sharpening applied. Different cameras, different sharpening, different MTF results. The best you can do is compare results from the same tester and trust that at least their method is self-consistent.doesnt look any better to me
Don
More seriously, the different testers vary a lot with respect to edge and corner sharpness. The reason, I suspect is that an MTF produces data for the meridional and saggital planes, which can be quite different in the corners, if the lens has astigmatism or coma. These bar charts have to combine the two, and I don't think the method if combination is consistent. Some will just take the meridional, others will average them is some way. Frankly all these tests a broad brush efforts, and if you compare different testers, there's almost nothing to be learned.
One clue about the different methods is the way they show the diffraction fall-off at small apertures, which should be pretty common, no matter the lens, because it doesn't depend on the lens formula at all. In this case the two lenses show very different diffraction fall-off. The Sony, according to Optical Limits. shows no diffraction fall-off, which is impossible.
Don
--
Olympus EM1mk2, Sony A7r2
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1 em5mk2
James Stirling
Forum Pro
It is good for our wallets Don, it can get costly quick if you chase high performance fast lensesI couldn't see the benefits of the 1.4 lens neither ,Hope the work things gets sorted out long term Don. The illness and deaths has been bad enough , but the economic disaster is just shaping up. Crazy times :-( . The Sony is a great lens though I am not sure it matters much the edge performance of the Nikon is amazing . I am quite happy that Nikon went the F/1.8 route first as personally I have zero need for F/1.2 or F/1.4 FF lenses.Thought you would like the different graphs
DoN
Plus the size of some starts to get a bit crazy. The excellent Sigma 40mm F/1.4 is an incredible performer from corner to corner but it weighs 1.2kg !. The need for super sharp corners at F/1.4 is I would suggest minimalSony ticks a lot of boxes but I just could not take to it. I have got rid of most of the Sony gear I use the 24mm GM, and 90mm macro on the TZE-01 and kept the A7rII mainly for using with the Samyang 35mm F/2.8 . Though there is plenty of friction between some of the users of both formats, the truth is that m43 and FF combined makes for a near perfect "kit"I wanted to keep a small FF system and very happy with my 2 lens. what surprised me was the 85 1.8 for shooting my daughters netball
--
Jim Stirling:
It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true” Russell
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post
Last edited:
bobn2
Forum Pro
The lens mount allows the lens to be closer to the sensor and allows the lens to be bigger, it doesn't mean that it has to be (as is obvious if you think about adapted lenses. In any case, allowing lens elements closer to the sensor has only beneficial effects, so long as those elements are large enough to cope with the exit pupil's size and position. And a larger mount allows that. It would be an odd state of affairs where having a smaller mount was a good thing, from any point of view apart from camera size.But wouldn't the lens mount being bigger and the lens closer to the sensor make for larger fall off in the boarders and corners ?Repel all boarders.I understand that. I was comparing the percentages for center compared to boarder to corner not specifically the values but the fall offDon, you can't compare MTF results from two completely different sources. Very few of these web testers take the care to standardise their test protocols with any rigour. For instance, I know that OpticalLimits ( the one below) does its tests on JPEGs with sharpening applied. Different cameras, different sharpening, different MTF results. The best you can do is compare results from the same tester and trust that at least their method is self-consistent.doesnt look any better to me
Don
More seriously, the different testers vary a lot with respect to edge and corner sharpness. The reason, I suspect is that an MTF produces data for the meridional and saggital planes, which can be quite different in the corners, if the lens has astigmatism or coma. These bar charts have to combine the two, and I don't think the method if combination is consistent. Some will just take the meridional, others will average them is some way. Frankly all these tests a broad brush efforts, and if you compare different testers, there's almost nothing to be learned.
One clue about the different methods is the way they show the diffraction fall-off at small apertures, which should be pretty common, no matter the lens, because it doesn't depend on the lens formula at all. In this case the two lenses show very different diffraction fall-off. The Sony, according to Optical Limits. shows no diffraction fall-off, which is impossible.
Don
In any case, this has nothing to do with diffraction limited resolution, which doesn't depend on either mount size or register.
--
Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?
bobn2
Forum Pro
It's a good idea not to pick up your ideas from articles like that. It's full of mistakes and errors, and the authors certainly haven't a clue what 'ISO' is.
They've tried to include a disclaimer to cover their ignorance ("Nowadays, we can control the sensitivity of the digital sensor on the fly, though technically, we’re not controlling the sensitivity; this actually controls a post-image gain applied to the signal, but for all intents and purposes, you can think of this as sensitivity.") but the result is still a nonsense. You cannot control either the 'technical' or 'all intents and purposed' sensitivity of your sensor, and the ISO setting does not determine or specify what should be the sensitivity of your sensor. The idea that raising the ISO 'allows' you to work with less light is false. You can work with any amount of light you want, you don't need ISO's permission. The penalty for using little light is that you get more noise - it has nothing to do with ISO - they have that all back to front.
It's interesting that practically every promoter of the exposure triangle has no idea what ISO is, and a fair few don't know what exposure is either. These ones don't, they start off with 'The exposure triangle is a common way of associating the three variables that determine the exposure of a photograph: aperture, shutter speed, and ISO' This is nonsense. Exposure is determined by the f-number (not the aperture), shutter speed and scene luminance (plus a factor for the transmission of the lens if we want to be very accurate). ISO cannot determine exposure because ISO is defined by exposure. They also don't know what 'Exposure Value' (EV) is. The say 'We call a specific combination of f-number, shutter speed, and ISO an exposure value (EV)'. This is wrong too. An exposure value is a way of expressing the combined effect of shutter speed and f-number only.
Shame on them for publishing such a poor, misleading and utterly wrong article.
Many people do. I don't know why.
LandscapeWhisperer
Well-known member
- Messages
- 189
- Reaction score
- 96
If someone just getting into photography wants to be able to function, I would not present your argument. And, that's clearly the audience that the F-Stoppers article is oriented towards.
I would not get into ISO invariant sensors, shot noise, T-stops, or any of that stuff.
When using a digital camera, I am constantly varying SS, aperture, and ISO, as well as other settings, to achieve a desired result based on my knowledge of what the camera will produce as output. And, the output, of course, is going to have many characteristics such as the amount of noise in different zones, retention of highlight and shadow detail and color, and so forth. And, it takes quite a bit of experience with a camera these days to get a feel as to what the output is going to be for a specific scene because even raw files have been processed in-camera to a great extent.
I'm not even sure what the definition of ISO is these days, as opposed to film, when we could measure the density of a negative when the camera was imaging an 18% gray card.
On my A7RII, for example, a second native ISO kicks in around ISO 640 or so, and I exploit that a lot. But, I'll push the ISO up if I need to, and the mental calculation which I do is to visualize how the reduction in dynamic range is going to affect the image.
So, all that I am saying is that having 3 dials on the camera to control these factors is quite convenient in manual mode, even if ISO does not work like it did in film days (which I still use from time to time.)
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum