E-M1 to A7 movers: What do you miss?

Started Mar 4, 2014 | Discussions
Jack Hass Regular Member • Posts: 392
Re: Lol ...

blue_skies wrote:

I also don't know why you keep trying to proclaim superiority of the m43 systems here - isn't this the forum where you would expect that your facts will get picked apart?

No, bc this is a mirrorless forum, and many of these guys shoot MFT too.

And, fwiw, I have nothing against m43 systems, but I am wondering why m43 users are posting on other forums, especially this one.... and I am wondering why m43 users are so sensitive about me when I call them out on facts.

Me and about 27 other people disagree. Countering your claims doesn't make us sensitive, no more than you disputing mine makes you sensitive. In case you haven't been reading, many of the NEX users own MFT too, and many people wanting to learn more about NEX come here to post as well.

Oh, and many of these 'm43 users' that post here are not long-term users, with galleries and histories. Which puzzles me even more - as the real m43 users don't throw out posts like yours, then why would you? Do you even have original pictures with EXIF info?

Are you suggesting my photo wasn't really from MFT?

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

-- hide signature --

May Satan forever guide you.

Kokanee New Member • Posts: 3
Re: E-M1 to A7 movers: What do you miss?

I owned an EM-1 for a week but found the pictures looked too pixellated for my liking, especially at high-contrast borders. After testing it against an a7, I returned the EM-1 and purchased the a7.

Cheers,

>K<

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 9,509
Re: I have no idea ...

Jack Hass wrote:

EarthQuake wrote:

blue_skies wrote:

I have no idea why you make such an off topic response. Read my post again: your IBIS claims are biased and overrated, and my response was neither the first nor the last that you will see on this forum, posted by people with real experience.

Hmm, i guess you were right, although im not sure EarthQuake was one of the posters you were expecting

RE: 3 stops of IBIS being negated by 2 stops...

This is only if you shoot your fast lenses wide open all the time, which is often a detriment in low light with FF, (not always, but often), the ISO difference is only about 1.5 stops anyway, so if you stop down from f1.4 to f2, you only have a half stop of ISO advantage, and you're losing somewhere in the range of 3-5 stops when looking at unstabilized primes (every FF prime you could use on E system). You can use a zoom with OIS, but then you're limited to F4, which is another 3 stops slower than a 25/1.4 or similar lens on M43rds. A stationary subject, like a night landscape where you want more DOF, not less, handheld with an F4 zoom is going to need a much higher ISO than with a 1.4 M43rds prime on an OMD.

Its true that FF does offer more flexibility in terms of ISO, DR and shallow DOF, but these advantages are not always an advantage. If you need a fast shutter speed in low light and you want very narrow DOF, FF has a a clear advantage, but that rarely happens and you will have lots of trouble hitting focus on your fast moving object in this situation anyway. In good light FF obviously has the advantage because its simply more flexible, and in moderate light generally as well, again if you can live with narrower DOF.

I know narrow DOF is always talked about as if its the holy grail, but as someone who shoots both FF and M43rds, getting enough in focus can often be tricky on FF, especially if say, you have more than one person in a shot. Again if you've gotta stop your lens down and raise the ISO, you no longer have any advantage over the smaller sensor, and smaller/lighter system.

FF sensors are clearly better in theory or on paper, but in real use its not as cut and dry.

Completely agree. The point about thin DOF and getting focus right is spot on. Who in their right mind is going to shoot action with an F1.2 and expect many to be keepers. Super thin DOF has a very limited use, and losing 2 stops with FF makes everything harder. As you say, more flexible in good light.

-- hide signature --

May Satan forever guide you.

Actually, using a 1.2 lens for action shots with the A7 is surprisingly easy thanks to focus peaking and magnification (for a quick double check).....try it (oh that's right you never will).

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 9,509
Re: E-M1 to A7 movers: What do you miss?

exdeejjjaaaa wrote:

Alex Notpro wrote:

I'm specifically interested in USABILITY of these cameras, how they handle in the field, etc...

A7 battery life is miserable vs E-M1

GX7 battery life is also not that great.....still I only have one for the GX7 vs two for the A7.

m43 CDAF (any latest Olympus of Panasonic camera) runs circles around A7 w/ PDAF on sensor

I disagree with this to a point.

In low light at least and against the GX7 (not E-M1), the AF of the A7 seems to me to be faster than the GX7....especially for movies.

The GX7 will AF at EV -4 ...a lot lower than the A7 but before the A7 stops, it is a lot faster.

And of course they both meter to around the same EV.

At EV -4, I would prefer to use the A7 and manual focus anyway.

stupid situation with flashes shoe mounts in Sony system

Does that apply to the A7??   My cheap no name Chinese Ebay flash works ok on the A7....and GX7.

Jack Hass Regular Member • Posts: 392
Re: I have no idea ...

neil holmes wrote:

Actually, using a 1.2 lens for action shots with the A7 is surprisingly easy thanks to focus peaking and magnification (for a quick double check).....try it (oh that's right you never will).

Please, show us some action shots of you manually focusing an A7 @F1.2. And, how do you know i will never own an A7? Perhaps one day i will do as many have done and own both systems. But then you would have to find something else to compete over.

-- hide signature --

May Satan forever guide you.

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 9,509
Re: I have no idea ...
1

Jack Hass wrote:

neil holmes wrote:

Actually, using a 1.2 lens for action shots with the A7 is surprisingly easy thanks to focus peaking and magnification (for a quick double check).....try it (oh that's right you never will).

Please, show us some action shots of you manually focusing an A7 @F1.2

. And, how do you know i will never own an A7? Perhaps one day i will do as many have done and own both systems. But then you would have to find something else to compete over.

Because in answer to

"and I will leave it there.....get back to me if you ever actually USE a A7 in low light."

YOU wrote.....

"I never will".......

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53170756

I use and love both m4/3 and an A7...what is there to compete with.

exdeejjjaaaa
exdeejjjaaaa Veteran Member • Posts: 8,263
Re: E-M1 to A7 movers: What do you miss?

neil holmes wrote:

exdeejjjaaaa wrote:

Alex Notpro wrote:

I'm specifically interested in USABILITY of these cameras, how they handle in the field, etc...

A7 battery life is miserable vs E-M1

GX7 battery life is also not that great.....still I only have one for the GX7 vs two for the A7.

I am coming from GH2/GH3, so if GX7 is worse than E-M then shame on Panasonic...

m43 CDAF (any latest Olympus of Panasonic camera) runs circles around A7 w/ PDAF on sensor

I disagree with this to a point.

I can compare GH2, GH3, E-M1 w/ A7... I do not shoot movies though

stupid situation with flashes shoe mounts in Sony system

Does that apply to the A7?? My cheap no name Chinese Ebay flash works ok on the A7....and GX7.

I am talking about TTL flashes (and a need to use an adapter for old TTL Sony/Minolta flashes w./ new Sony bodies)... to insert a dumb manual flash is not an issue (finally).

 exdeejjjaaaa's gear list:exdeejjjaaaa's gear list
Sony Alpha a7R II Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Phase One Capture One Pro +25 more
NumberOne Veteran Member • Posts: 3,569
Re: E-M1 to A7 movers: What do you miss?

exdeejjjaaaa wrote:

NumberOne wrote:

exdeejjjaaaa wrote:

Alex Notpro wrote:

I'm specifically interested in USABILIT Y of these cameras, how they handle in the field, etc...

A7 battery life is miserable vs E-M1

Nothing a spare (or 2) can't solve...

true, however it is still a hassle... and E-M1 is miserable vs Panasonic... and Panasonic is miserable vs dSLRs and those vs all manual film cameras... the point here is - if you make a top level camera with grip - do supply it with a greater capacity battery, as it is not intended to be a pocketable camera.

I do believe the "battery hassle" was a design decision for achieving a small camera size - A wrong belief, if you ask me, as a bigger (and more ergonomic) grip would also allow a bigger battery capacity without much altering the camera size and portability.

It seems these designers forget that just near the grip you have to put a much bigger (and cumbersome) lens...

Anyway, looking at the battery size one can surely predict a very short (miserable, as you call it) battery life...

I miss fully articulated LCD of my pre E-M1 GH3 camera (both in A7 and in E-M1)

I find a dedicated exposure comp in A7 dial totally useless

I guess you don't use 'Manual Mode with Auto-ISO' a lot...

I do not use Auto-ISO because I know which gain is optimal for raw conversion w/ my raw converters for my purposes - so I just set that ISO for a particular situation, if you don't or if you are a JPG shooter then we are sailling in different boats... note that I wrote "I find", w/o generalizing.

Maybe we sail the same boat differently, every skipper has it's own style and feeling, but I can assure you that jpgs were never my cup of tea; I will be burned by this, but I go further by saying that shooting jpgs with an A7R (or A7, or any decent camera, FF or not) is a "photographic crime/attempt"!

more effort to make zebra in A7 show raw clipping vs real time blinkies in E-M1

Channel/colour clipping is the right solution...

I prefer to meter properely before the shot, did I say that I was not using UniWB and post shot blinkes and histogram ? I use them too, but I tune my cameras to have all things available for me and that includes real time zebra/blinkes in EVF/LV, spot metering to place the spot into the right zone (as we establish the headroom with rawdigger) _and_ post shot review with both blinkies and UniWB tuned OOC JPG histogram... now there are indeed some better ideal solutions that are not available, so theoretically I want them too, but I can't have them...

Sorry, I'm old (ancient?!) school here, ie, just aperture, shutter speed, ISO and the "old" post processing way...

Best regards,
Pedro

 NumberOne's gear list:NumberOne's gear list
Sony Alpha a7R Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony FE 24-70mm F4 OSS Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Zeiss Batis 85mm F1.8 +13 more
captura Forum Pro • Posts: 23,734
Re: I have no idea ...

blue_skies wrote:

EarthQuake wrote:

Jack Hass wrote:

blue_skies wrote:

Agreed. Im not saying a larger sensor with better high ISO is never better, but it is the minority. There are three basic shooting scenarios. Low light, where motion is fairly slow or stationary, moderate light (such as gyms and very overcast days) where action is taking place, and bright sunny days or bright lights where action is taking place.

  • Low light: nobody is really going to try to shoot action here, so SS are going to be as low as possible to keep ISO down. In this scenario, IBIS can make up for better ISO figures. One with IBIS/OIS can shoot slower SS and lower ISO and get away with it.
  • Moderate light, action: This is where better ISO performance will shine, but it's only 1/3 of the deal. In this light, SS need to be higher, and it will be high enough to negate camera shake, but since light is in demand ISO will need to be high. In this scenario, better ISO performance is preferred. Indoor sports for example is an example where larger sensor/larger lenses are a benefit. This is why, IMO, Canon haven't bothered to add IBIS. They are much more sports oriented with cameras like the 7D, and sports shooters will have SS high enough to negate camera shake anyway. Plus there are also OIS lenses for when that is a must.
  • Bright light, action: This is a situation where light is so abundant that action is possible without ISO getting too high. Most action shots can be made without going over ISO 800, as long as the lens is fairly fast. In this case, better ISO performance is much less an issue as everything looks fairly good since ISO is low. Once again, IBIS/OIS is not needed since SS is fast enough to freeze normal camera shake.

This is of course a generalization, but it's accurate. Any other situation, like portraits in good light, isn't worth comparing since ISO is low, SS is less of an issue, or one can use flash, ect. The above 3 distinctions pretty much cover what is necessary, and non stabilized high ISO monsters only benefit in 1 out of 3. Don't get me wrong, something that is FF AND stabilized is best overall, but this comparison is based on the A7 vs something like an EM1 that has IBIS. The real world difference comes out surprisingly small.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about - FF is one benefit out of three? FF has many benefits, many more than the three topics you list here...

Note i said it was a generalization, and no, FF has no innate benefits. It does a few things slightly better, and a few slightly worse, than sensors of other sizes. Stabilization is something i would say offers benefits.

Whether or not you freeze SS, you can view all formats as being able to shoot equivalent, as the right exposure relationship between SS, f-stop and ISO levels roughly equates to similar levels of DOF and noise at equivalent settings (if possible).

That's the point, with IBIS, it's not always going to be equivelant. IBIS allows you to shoot at lower ISO for slow moving subjects with EVERY lens. In this case, SS, f-stop and ISO levels are not even.

FF just gives you a broader range than a smaller sensor does (you can open wider). Both formats let you stop down to similar result levels.

Totally depends on your purpose. Like i said, some benefits, some things are worse. Take for example the peak of lens resolution. If i need to stop down to my lens's sharpest aperture, is FF going to be at the same F stop as MFT? No, MFT lenses tend to hit their peak at around F2-F4. FF tend to hit theirs between F4 and F8. This is one advantage of smaller format lenses, they have less falloff at the fast end.

If you throw around IBIS, you have to identify what types of shooting this is about. OSS for FF is available (e.g. if you want to do video). But, general numbers are that IBIS give you three stops of compensation over non-IBIS, whereas FF gives you two stops over m43. In other words, a m43 IBIS versus a non-OSS FF comparison is only about a one stop advantage. I probably would prefer the FF, because SS longer than around 1/80th give blurry people subjects,

That's why i classified my last post into three types. Two were action, one was static. I was explaining when IBIS would be more useful than a larger sensor without IS, which is more often than many think.

and if I can shoot at 1/20th or so, I don't need IBIS, since the scene allows me to use a bean-bag, tripod, or otherwise.

You seem to be downplaying the importance of IS, but there is a reason every system either has IBIS or OIS lenses.

I remember reading that m43 users often talk about lack of shallow DOF. Sure, there are techniques, but it pales in comparison to FF flexibility. But then AF is fast(er). A bit, the A7 is no slough.

Actually more often i wish i had more DOF, so i can get both eyes in focus even when my subject is not squared to the lens. All i have to do to get more separation is change the ratio of my and the background's subject distance.

Also, as I am shooting FF more nowadays, I begin to appreciate the FF benefits more and more, each time that I use it. And yes, I do have to remind myself sometimes to STOP DOWN - as for some cases I do want a large DOF and high sharpness result. My little trick? I use iAuto then - works like a charm.

.....

And the extra resolution? Much more useful than with the Nex-7. With the Nex-7 I did not want to raise ISO and then crop afterwards, With the A7, sure!

And the 7 had no IBIS either.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

-- hide signature --

May Satan forever guide you.

RE: 3 stops of IBIS being negated by 2 stops...

This is only if you shoot your fast lenses wide open all the time, which is often a detriment in low light with FF, (not always, but often), the ISO difference is only about 1.5 stops anyway, so if you stop down from f1.4 to f2, you only have a half stop of ISO advantage, and you're losing somewhere in the range of 3-5 stops when looking at unstabilized primes (every FF prime you could use on E system). You can use a zoom with OIS, but then you're limited to F4, which is another 3 stops slower than a 25/1.4 or similar lens on M43rds. A stationary subject, like a night landscape where you want more DOF, not less, handheld with an F4 zoom is going to need a much higher ISO than with a 1.4 M43rds prime on an OMD.

I do not find this a problem in real life. If I want to shoot people, OSS only works for shooting less than 1/FL for longer lenses, but I don't rely on it for shooting people with standard or wider lenses, as even 1/60th is too slow to shoot people in sharp focus (subject blur).

A 25mm/f1.4 lens on m43 produces similar results as a 50mm/f2.8 lens on FF. Sure, the equivalent ISO is higher on FF, but the equivalent noise is very similar.

On FF, I can get down to maybe 1/60th, and IBIS or OSS lets me go down to 1/8th. At 1/8th, I can only shoot stationary objects. And for such objects I may as well use something to support the camera, and if I cannot, use MFNR multi-frame techniques.

Its true that FF does offer more flexibility in terms of ISO, DR and shallow DOF, but these advantages are not always an advantage. If you need a fast shutter speed in low light and you want very narrow DOF, FF has a a clear advantage, but that rarely happens and you will have lots of trouble hitting focus on your fast moving object in this situation anyway. In good light FF obviously has the advantage because its simply more flexible, and in moderate light generally as well, again if you can live with narrower DOF.

I commented on shooting my Nex-6 side by side with the A7. I simply am impressed with the A7 results.

I also shot the Nex-6 side by side with the Nex-7, and I preferred the Nex-6 as a take-anywhere/do-all camera (but I kept the Nex-7 anyways).

I know narrow DOF is always talked about as if its the holy grail, but as someone who shoots both FF and M43rds, getting enough in focus can often be tricky on FF, especially if say, you have more than one person in a shot. Again if you've gotta stop your lens down and raise the ISO, you no longer have any advantage over the smaller sensor, and smaller/lighter system.

DOF is DOF, regardless of sensor format. Both cameras can cover the same DOF, the larger sensor just needs a higher f-stop.

If you do need a higher f-stop, you can simply use a OSS stabilized kit zoom lens. That is what I do.

If I use a non-OSS lens, it is because it is f/2 and not f/5.6, so I gain three stops. Sure, I can use f/2 on the m43 with IBIS and lengthen my shutter time, but my point was that in changing to this fast lens, I am back at shutter speeds that allow me to work without OSS/IBIS.

And the DOF that I get from f/2 on FF is much different than f/2 on m43.

FF sensors are clearly better in theory or on paper, but in real use its not as cut and dry.

I wouldn't say better. It is a trade-off. If you shoot FF mainly stopped down, you may be better off with a smaller sensor format. FF simply gives you more flexibility and IQ, but it increases size, bulk, and cost - and may not be the most economic format.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

The most intelligent option was the OIS on some older Panasonic lenses (like OSS) which had a manual switch on the barrel to turn the I.S. to ON or OFF.

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Canon EOS 500D Canon EOS Rebel SL2 Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Google Nexus 5
captura Forum Pro • Posts: 23,734
Re: Lol ...

Jack Hass wrote:

blue_skies wrote:

I also don't know why you keep trying to proclaim superiority of the m43 systems here - isn't this the forum where you would expect that your facts will get picked apart?

No, bc this is a mirrorless forum, and many of these guys shoot MFT too.

And, fwiw, I have nothing against m43 systems, but I am wondering why m43 users are posting on other forums, especially this one.... and I am wondering why m43 users are so sensitive about me when I call them out on facts.

Me and about 27 other people disagree. Countering your claims doesn't make us sensitive, no more than you disputing mine makes you sensitive. In case you haven't been reading, many of the NEX users own MFT too, and many people wanting to learn more about NEX come here to post as well.

Oh, and many of these 'm43 users' that post here are not long-term users, with galleries and histories. Which puzzles me even more - as the real m43 users don't throw out posts like yours, then why would you? Do you even have original pictures with EXIF info?

Are you suggesting my photo wasn't really from MFT?

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

-- hide signature --

May Satan forever guide you.

Sure, then what were you doing on the Open Talk forum trash-talking Sony mercilessly, with unfounded rumors, exaggerations and false statements? Honing you skills at being truthful, perhaps? NOT.

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Canon EOS 500D Canon EOS Rebel SL2 Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Google Nexus 5
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads