OMD really match NEX APS-C sensor with 40% smaller size? Anyone have both?

[rbattsall]

That's fantastic for some purposes, you can get the increased shutter speed without the wafer thin DOF.

exactly, its like the new panny 12-35mm lens, everyone likes to say that it is the equivalent of a 24-70 f/2.8 on full frame and from an angle of view perspective this is true, but from a DOF point of view it is actually the equivalent of a 24-70 f/5.6 lens

you can't treat physics for DOF. If I am correct DOF in MFT is about 1 stop more than APS-C so F2.8 DOF in MFT is the same as F4 in APS-C

This can be good or bad. Panasonic promote this as an advantage that one don't have to be precise in focus to get so called sharp everywhere

But to me I don't think that is an advantage. If I want DOF I can always use F8 but the reverse is not true. In MFT if you want less DOF you got to have faster lens which is expensive

--
NEX-7 & Sigma 30mm f/2.8
NEX-5 & 18-55 OSS
And a spare black 18-55

 

[Sean_Jayhawk]

I did say its useless with what "I" use in MF. Not everyone else I use 300 F/2.8 and 2/ 500mm F/4.5's. They are too heavy to lift up for long, so a tripod is needed. Hence IBIS is a complete waste of time for me....me only On the other hand, focus peaking is the bees knees. Something Everdog will never understand. If you shoot at over 1/1600th which I generally do, again IBIS is a waste of time. You need to turn it off or IBIS will cause problems, same with OIS.

Agreed. Even my Canon FD 200/2.8 is too big for me to handhold and requires a tripod. And, I would not shoot legacy (manual focus) lenses without focus peaking. Focus peaking is the #1 feature on my 5N for 80% of my shots even when shooting with AF lenses and using DMF to tweak when I am shooting wide open.

 

[madzazulu]

It's getting noisier after APS-C .

 

[GaryW]

I did read it. So they have a new setup where they can finetune lighting to normative values. That means that the external light should be set to the same level.

How do you get that from:

We don't randomly change the light levels between cameras on a whim.... it doesn't have to be done at a fixed light level because, by a happy accident of design, cameras can compensate for differing light levels by using different shutter speeds.

They say about 3 times that the lighting level is different for different cameras. In fact they had to turn it down even more for the new Canon..

That's because the light was turned down lower for the 5D Mark III (I'm still playing with parameters for this setup).

Got it?

I don't like the idea of changing the available light between cameras. The problem is that this makes it difficult to compare. All a camera does is capture light at a given shutter speed. If it looks better on camera A than camera B, that's what I need to know.

I second the comment that DxO seems to have this figured out.

Anyway, I kind of agree with headofdestiny on this. It would help if it were the same all the time, but I know that is difficult.

--
Gary W.

 

[GaryW]

That's fantastic for some purposes, you can get the increased shutter speed without the wafer thin DOF.

I can increase shutter and get more DOF with any camera by adjusting to a smaller aperture.

exactly, its like the new panny 12-35mm lens, everyone likes to say that it is the equivalent of a 24-70 f/2.8 on full frame and from an angle of view perspective this is true, but from a DOF point of view it is actually the equivalent of a 24-70 f/5.6 lens

^ this

you can't treat physics for DOF. If I am correct DOF in MFT is about 1 stop more than APS-C so F2.8 DOF in MFT is the same as F4 in APS-C

This can be good or bad. Panasonic promote this as an advantage that one don't have to be precise in focus to get so called sharp everywhere

But to me I don't think that is an advantage. If I want DOF I can always use F8 but the reverse is not true. In MFT if you want less DOF you got to have faster lens which is expensive

--
Gary W.

 

[Just Having Fun]

Focus peaking usually sucks. It needs a high contrast scene or it is worthless. I have had it on my camcorders for years an now on my A65, and whenever I need it, it doesn't work. When it does, it is not 100% accurate.

I am noticing a trend here. People cling to whatever they can to justify their camera purpose. I think deep down everyone knows Sony made some major design flaws with the NEX system. They are secretly praying of IBIS one day, and dream of magical small high quality lenses that will never come. Canon did the right thing picking a 4/3rds sensor for mirrorless. It means Sigma will soon drop NEX and focus on making much smaller and lighter lenses for the 3 big mirrorless companies.

 

[cxsparc]

Focus peaking usually sucks. It needs a high contrast scene or it is worthless. I have had it on my camcorders for years an now on my A65, and whenever I need it, it doesn't work. When it does, it is not 100% accurate.

I am noticing a trend here. People cling to whatever they can to justify their camera purpose. I think deep down everyone knows Sony made some major design flaws with the NEX system. They are secretly praying of IBIS one day, and dream of magical small high quality lenses that will never come. Canon did the right thing picking a 4/3rds sensor for mirrorless. It means Sigma will soon drop NEX and focus on making much smaller and lighter lenses for the 3 big mirrorless companies.

Not having focus peaking sucks. If you compare a small chip camcorder peaking function with the nex, you haven't understood that such a small sensor has a large DOF, making it hard to detect accurate focus. Try a FD 50/1.4 lens for low DOF. Have shot wonderful pictures with it & peaking.

As for the rest:
On your part I'd ask for the money back for that mind-reading class you took

No, I am not praying for IBIS. I have OIS in the kit and the 50mm lens and have no problems shooting my FD lenses without (remember High Iso = fast shutter speeds?).

And I do NOT long for small lenses. The smaller the lens, the more awkward to hold the Camera. My fully extended 80-200 FD zoom with adapter is an excellent example. Heavy, but comfortable to hold. But maybe I just have large hands, being 6 ft?

Canon did that slightly larger than M43 sensor to not jeopardize their successful sale of entry level DSLRs. Not being that size is the answer to all.

Sigma will drop Nex? On which planet are you living ?
Ever noticed that there is a Ricoh, a Fuji Xpro1 etc, all with an APSC sensor?

Ask yourself why you have this missionary urge to bash the Nex system and post your imaginations in this forum?

 

[RussellInCincinnati]

JustHavingFun: [Post title: focus peaking doesn't always work.]...Focus peaking usually sucks...whenever I need it, it doesn't work. When it does, it is not 100% accurate.

So you have found that focus peaking has NEVER accurately worked, on any of your cameras for any scenes. This is not an honest post.

JustHavingFun: ...noticing a trend here. People cling...

So people don't really like focus peaking, they just say they do to hide their horror at having purchased a Nex. Insults to people who disagree with you, nice for you that it's an anonymous public forum.

JustHavingFun: everyone knows Sony made some major design flaws with the NEX system...It means Sigma will soon drop NEX

You think Sigma will soon stop making lenses for the Nex? Just a few weeks after they introduced 2 new Nex lenses?

Insulting posts full of made-up stories, containing no information about a Nex, coming of course from someone who doesn't have a Nex, are at a minimum mis-posted in a Nex forum. JHF you've said intelligent things at points in the past. Here you are building up material for complaining to forum moderators.

 

[Dennis]

If you take a picture and cut away the borders, the DOF of the picture will stay the same.

It doesn't.

DOF calculations are based on viewing prints of a certain size at a certain distance (typically a distance equal to the diagonal of the print). Cropping makes the print smaller which means you hold it closer (according to the assumptions inherent in DOF calculations) so it has to be "sharper" to appear in focus.

If you use a crop camera, this camera has a smaller sensor compared to FF. So mounting the same lens of a certain focal length to this camera will yield the same DOF as when mounted on a FF camera. Still following me?

That's wrong. It's the same at the sensor, but that's irrelevant.

If you believe otherwise, plug some numbers into the DOF calculator at dofmaster.com or elsewhere. A 50mm lens at f/2.8 does not give you the same DOF used with different sensors.

But of course the picture is not the same anymore, because the crop camera does show only a smaller, inner part of the scene.

And when you enlarge that captured image to make an 8x10 print, you're enlarging the two images to different degrees, so depth of field in the resulting image is NOT the same.

2. Switch to a lens with a focal length = old focal length divided by crop factor.

Of course, that's what equivalence is all about. You pick the FL that gives you the framing you want. To match framing and depth of field for a given shot you'd need:

25mm at f/4 on m43
33mm at f/5.3 on APS-C
50mm at f/8 on FF

Noting that those are based on diagonal equivalents and as indicated earlier, if you crop the m43 image to 2:3 or the other images to 3:4 the calculations are slightly different.

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

 

[PhotoHawk]

It seems as far as noise is concerned the OMD is really equivalent to the G3 (see the DPReview graphs for raw noise - put either the K5 or the D7000 in and you can see a fair difference in noise performance). The DPR reviews measure the Dynamic Range of the JPEG pipeline not the sensor itself. DXO measures the sensor not the JPEG pipeline performance.

I would imagine we will find from DXO tests yet to come that the OMD has similar sensor performance as the G3's sensor. That being said you can look up the G3 and compare it to the best APC sensors. Note that the ADC on the OMD and G3 is 12 bits which does tend to limit its low ISO dynamic range performance relative to the latest 14 bit ADC APSC sensors.

 

[markymark101]

I've got admit, if the OMD had the OLED EVF, I'd be buying it.

I've been considering the NEX7 for a while, but haven't pulled the trigger to wait to see new lens announcements. At this point for the NEX, I'd prefer to buy the adaptor and use my A mount lenses, but I can't see the point in doing that; I'll just stick with my DSLR.

Frankly, if the IQ claims ring true, the OMD might meet my needs better. I really like the more traditional look and form, weather sealed (I hike), smaller and (for now) better selection of lenses, faster focus. What's not to like? Admittedly, the small buttons on the OMD may be a bid fiddily at first. The main advantage (for my purposes) with the NEX7 is the OLED EVF - and that's a significant consideration.

I'll wait to see how the DXOMark scores things, but really I think IQ on these cameras has gotten to the point where they are all really good. It's becoming more of the form factor - what fits your needs better.

 

[PhotoHawk]

I agree with you on the capability of the current generation equipments technical capability. Technically they are all very good today. Haptics and personal preferences other than IQ are very much moving to the forefront of decision making.

 

[rbattsall]

Of course, but you either have to extend the shutter speed or the ISO at the expense of possible blur or noise.

The point I am making is that there are occasions such as low light event work where you need depth of field and a faster shutter speed, it's not always a disadvantage to have plenty of DOF.

That's fantastic for some purposes, you can get the increased shutter speed without the wafer thin DOF.

I can increase shutter and get more DOF with any camera by adjusting to a smaller aperture.

exactly, its like the new panny 12-35mm lens, everyone likes to say that it is the equivalent of a 24-70 f/2.8 on full frame and from an angle of view perspective this is true, but from a DOF point of view it is actually the equivalent of a 24-70 f/5.6 lens

^ this

you can't treat physics for DOF. If I am correct DOF in MFT is about 1 stop more than APS-C so F2.8 DOF in MFT is the same as F4 in APS-C

This can be good or bad. Panasonic promote this as an advantage that one don't have to be precise in focus to get so called sharp everywhere

But to me I don't think that is an advantage. If I want DOF I can always use F8 but the reverse is not true. In MFT if you want less DOF you got to have faster lens which is expensive

--
Gary W.

 

[nzmacro]

Focus peaking usually sucks. It needs a high contrast scene or it is worthless. I have had it on my camcorders for years an now on my A65, and whenever I need it, it doesn't work. When it does, it is not 100% accurate.

I am noticing a trend here. People cling to whatever they can to justify their camera purpose. I think deep down everyone knows Sony made some major design flaws with the NEX system. They are secretly praying of IBIS one day, and dream of magical small high quality lenses that will never come. Canon did the right thing picking a 4/3rds sensor for mirrorless. It means Sigma will soon drop NEX and focus on making much smaller and lighter lenses for the 3 big mirrorless companies.

Ever spent the time in setting it up with the contrast and colour control....nope you have not huh.

With m4/3 in around 18 months I managed to capture about 5-6 shots of BIFs. With focus peaking on the NEX I would have close to 30 in 3 months with focus peaking. Simple fact, it works if you set it up.

I still use the G2 and slowly without peaking, its getting put aside. You really don't have a clue about it do you. I hear this all the time from non users and those that don't spend the time to set it up properly for what they shoot. I even use it on macro for insects in flight.

Danny.
...........................
Birds and macro. NEX and m4/3

http://www.birdsinaction.com

Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.

 

[rtol]

Focus peaking usually sucks. It needs a high contrast scene or it is worthless. I have had it on my camcorders for years an now on my A65, and whenever I need it, it doesn't work. When it does, it is not 100% accurate.

I am noticing a trend here. People cling to whatever they can to justify their camera purpose. I think deep down everyone knows Sony made some major design flaws with the NEX system. They are secretly praying of IBIS one day, and dream of magical small high quality lenses that will never come. Canon did the right thing picking a 4/3rds sensor for mirrorless. It means Sigma will soon drop NEX and focus on making much smaller and lighter lenses for the 3 big mirrorless companies.

No, actually it works rather well. Either you don't understand how to properly use it, or you are purposefully being dishonest in an attempt to troll.

 

[GaryW]

Of course, but you either have to extend the shutter speed or the ISO at the expense of possible blur or noise.

The point I am making is that there are occasions such as low light event work where you need depth of field and a faster shutter speed, it's not always a disadvantage to have plenty of DOF.

No, if you're talking about outdoors with sufficient light, but if are already in a low-light situation, you're at a disadvantage. The only way I can have more DOF is to have a smaller aperture, cutting down the available light. Why be forced to do that with a smaller-sensor camera rather than have the choice with an APS-C camera?

Put an f5.6 lens on the Nex, and people complain about it, but it will have more DOF than an f4 or f2.8 lens, etc. I don't understand the big "advantage" to having a smaller sensor and more DOF. To me, it's only an advantage if 1) it's really smaller and 2) it's cheaper. I haven't seen it be enough of either to sway me from the Nex. However, if someone could make a better P&S that wasn't as good as the Nex but didn't cost like one and was smaller, that might make for a Nex alternative (as opposed to a DSLR alternative, haha).

That's fantastic for some purposes, you can get the increased shutter speed without the wafer thin DOF.

I can increase shutter and get more DOF with any camera by adjusting to a smaller aperture.

--
Gary W.

 

[Jefftan]

really if I have to invest $1000 into a lens, it won't be MFT

Even if today OMD sensor equal APS-C, it won't be tomorrow

There is always a 40% smaller size penalty and from what I see about the same camera body size and not much smaller lens size

Actually even today I am not sure it really equal APS-C in dynamic range and color depth (it match APS-C in high ISO)

My opinion is the best bet is in Sony E-mount. Reason is not only it is APS-C but it will be compatible with future Sony APS-C sensor.

So many people are waiting for Canon mirrorless. I don't see why. Look at the recent D800 vs 5D mark III, simply put Mark III suck. Dpreview really make a mistake this time given them both 82% and gold award

Mark III is not even close to D800 Sony sensor. If you don't believe read here
http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

you will be shock at the difference. I am not a Nikon fanboy as I don't own any Nikon

If Canon can't even give their $3500 top of the line full frame camera a good sensor, you guys are waiting for their APS-C mirrorless? (of course if you own a bunch of Canon lens and assume they will be compatible)

The best sensor in the camera industry is clearly from Sony. This is my logic the only expensive lens worth investing is in NEX E-mount

I am not against MFT at all. If fact their $400 E-PM1 or $300 E-PL1 is too good a deal to pass up as a second camera. But to invest in it, no way

not for my money

 

[rbattsall]

Of course, but you either have to extend the shutter speed or the ISO at the expense of possible blur or noise.

The point I am making is that there are occasions such as low light event work where you need depth of field and a faster shutter speed, it's not always a disadvantage to have plenty of DOF.

No, if you're talking about outdoors with sufficient light, but if are already in a low-light situation, you're at a disadvantage. The only way I can have more DOF is to have a smaller aperture, cutting down the available light. Why be forced to do that with a smaller-sensor camera rather than have the choice with an APS-C camera?

You're missing the point. Because of the 2x crop for m43 you get the extra DOF due to having a wider focal length. For a given DOF you can use a wider aperture and hence get a faster shutter speed should you need to freeze movement.

 

[rbattsall]

The science dictates this will always be the case, just as FF will always be better that APS-C and MF will always be better than FF.

At some point we just have to decide if we can see the difference ourselves and if so,how much weight we want to carry to see it.

really if I have to invest $1000 into a lens, it won't be MFT

Even if today OMD sensor equal APS-C, it won't be tomorrow

There is always a 40% smaller size penalty and from what I see about the same camera body size and not much smaller lens size

Actually even today I am not sure it really equal APS-C in dynamic range and color depth (it match APS-C in high ISO)

My opinion is the best bet is in Sony E-mount. Reason is not only it is APS-C but it will be compatible with future Sony APS-C sensor.

So many people are waiting for Canon mirrorless. I don't see why. Look at the recent D800 vs 5D mark III, simply put Mark III suck. Dpreview really make a mistake this time given them both 82% and gold award

Mark III is not even close to D800 Sony sensor. If you don't believe read here
http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

you will be shock at the difference. I am not a Nikon fanboy as I don't own any Nikon

If Canon can't even give their $3500 top of the line full frame camera a good sensor, you guys are waiting for their APS-C mirrorless? (of course if you own a bunch of Canon lens and assume they will be compatible)

The best sensor in the camera industry is clearly from Sony. This is my logic the only expensive lens worth investing is in NEX E-mount

I am not against MFT at all. If fact their $400 E-PM1 or $300 E-PL1 is too good a deal to pass up as a second camera. But to invest in it, no way

not for my money

 

[GaryW]

You're missing the point. Because of the 2x crop for m43 you get the extra DOF due to having a wider focal length. For a given DOF you can use a wider aperture and hence get a faster shutter speed should you need to freeze movement.

You have to have a wider aperture to allow the same amount of light in, and then you happen to get the same DOF you would have gottenwith the more narrow APS-C aperture. I don't see where you've gotten anywhere, unless the camera is smaller and/or cheaper.
--
Gary W.