Camerasize.com comparison: GX7, E-P5, NEX6, X-E1

Started Aug 2, 2013 | Discussions
Sergey_Green
Sergey_Green Forum Pro • Posts: 11,391
Saying so does not make it so ..
2

Hen3ry wrote:

…when you drag out that 2/3 of a stop nonsense.

As he said, for some it is insignificant, for others it is important.

For goodness sake, go and check the physics! it is what falls on any point of the sensor, not the total that hits the sensor, that counts.

The phone cams would be equal to dSLRs by such rule, which is not the case. It is a total light that counts, and it has always been so.

Goodness gracious me -- schoolboy physics.

Which appears you have not learned so far. No worries, there is always a way .

-- hide signature --

- sergey

nzmacro
nzmacro Forum Pro • Posts: 15,399
Re: For me, the choice is between the G6 and the GX7…

Hen3ry wrote:

…with money definitely a consideration but not the end game really.

Comparing these two is interesting. The GX7 is smaller but is 30% heavier. Weight is a factor.

The GX7 certainly is the better looking.

External mikes for video are irrelevant for me.

Higher flash sync shutter speed in the GX7 is interesting.

Hmmm!

And then what about those two zoom lenses I hanker after the 12-35 and the 35-100? And if Im back to 100 as my longest lens, I would need a 100-300! OMG -- this is all getting out of control!

Cheers, geoff

LOL, hang onto your wallet mate

All the best Geoff and it is nice, but the G6 is a darn good price.

Danny.

-- hide signature --
Sergey_Green
Sergey_Green Forum Pro • Posts: 11,391
All the fuss ..

TrapperJohn wrote:

For all the fuss that's made over APS... just looking at those bodies lined up, and looking at the sensors that are clearly visible... APS isn't that much larger.

I am painfully aware of the specs on both, hear it on a regular basis.

But I look at that comparison, look at the photos that result, and have to think Shakespeare - much ado about nothing.

You mean photos produced by these cameras? So I am wondering, how is it that you observe the difference in results between mFT and Nikon 1 so quickly,

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51902351
Nikon has a sensor size penalty that is noticable in the final results

And yet continuously repeat there is no difference between mFT and APS-C. After all there is less than 10% between two differences (from APS-C to mFT, and from mFT to Nikon 1), how is it that you see 52% of area coverage as noticeable in in the results, and 61% as not that much larger?

Just curious.

Of course, when you start putting lenses on those bodies, as most of us tend to do, that smaller sensor sure has a lot more good, small, native glass.

-- hide signature --

- sergey

Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 41,324
As usual, you are wrong.

Hen3ry wrote:

…when you drag out that 2/3 of a stop nonsense.

For goodness sake, go and check the physics! it is what falls on any point of the sensor, not the total that hits the sensor, that counts.

Goodness gracious me -- schoolboy physics.

Funny you mention "schoolboy physics", since that's something I know more than a little about, and, gosh darn it, you're just plain wrong.

But, being the overflowing cup of human goodness that I am, I offer you a free education:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm#noise

Of course, please don't misinterpret the offer as an expectation of a positive result.

Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 41,324
Re: Well...

Alexis D wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

TrapperJohn wrote:

For all the fuss that's made over APS... just looking at those bodies lined up, and looking at the sensors that are clearly visible... APS isn't that much larger.

I am painfully aware of the specs on both, hear it on a regular basis.

But I look at that comparison, look at the photos that result, and have to think Shakespeare - much ado about nothing.

...the difference in sensor size between APS-C mirrorless and mFT is 2/3 of a stop, so if 2/3 of a stop "isn't that much larger" then, yes, you are correct.

Of course, when you start putting lenses on those bodies, as most of us tend to do, that smaller sensor sure has a lot more good, small, native glass.

For sure, there are some outstanding lenses for mFT that may very well outperform many of the selections available for APS-C. However, a good comparison might be the Olympus 45 / 1.8 against the Sony 50 / 1.8 OSS:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/532/(brand)/Olympus/(camera1)/0/(lens2)/745/(brand2)/Sony/(camera2)/0

and, at least in that one particular comparison, it seems that NEX is doing OK against mFT.

Is a comparison between a 45mm on MFT and a 50mm on APS-C a fair one? They are not "equivalent" when considering everything are they?

Well, the equivalent of a 45 / 1.8 on APS-C is 60 / 2.4, so, no, not perfectly equivalent.  But, in the ballpark, anyway.

FrankS009
FrankS009 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,999
The weight is the same.

The camerasize site has the GX7 weight wrong. It is 402 grams, about the same weight as the G6.

F.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads