Thoughts from those using both m43 and Full Frame DSLRs - that certain something?

[Jonas B]

Anders W wrote:

Jonas B wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Vittorio Fracassi wrote:

And an EVF is an EVF no matter how quickly it refreshes, there's always a bit of guessing going on in the photographer's mind.

With the E-M5 EVF set to high refresh, the EVF lag is now down to 30 ms. I am sure this value will continue to shrink in future bodies, especially in decent light. A DSLR must by definition always have a mirror lag when its OVF is used. It would be interesting to know how long that lag is relative to the EVF lag figures we are by now talking about.

Hmm. Now "we" don't use high refresh because of the known problems with the "blinkies" - so this reminds me about your lag test. Did you perform the same test with the camera set to normal refresh rate?

You mean you don't use the high refresh because of the problems with the LV "blinkies"?

Well, I also have my refresh set to normal for the most part, but I wouldn't hesitate to switch to fast if circumstances called for it. After all, there are solutions to the problem you mention.

Yes, I did test the lag time with the E-M5 set to normal refresh as well as the lag time on my old G1. In both cases, I found the lag to be roughly twice that of the E-M5 at high refresh, i.e., on the order of 60 rather than 30 ms. I should emphasize here that these are ballpark estimates. For more precise ones, I would have needed to take a much larger sample than I did or have better equipment at my disposal. If you have access to a 240 fps video camera, for example, you can get more precise estimates with much less work.

Thank you. Your measured result is what one can expect. Also if "ballpark estimates" only I see no reason to further investigate this.

The majority of my images don't demand high refresh rates and the normal refresh rate doesn't exactly make me suffer. I do however feel a difference between the Nex-5N (and I would guess the Nex-7 and the Sony A99) when it comes to feel connected in time with the target. That may be the shutter lag or the EVF, I don't know for sure. The E-M5 is however the best µ4/3 camera I've owned in this regard.

Not sure what you mean here? Are you saying the NEX 5N had more or less EVF lag than the E-M5?

Heh. Re-reading my own message made me confused. I think I tried to say I feel more connected to the target in the time domain when using a Nex-5N than when using my E-M5. This is what I perceive. I don't know if it possible to measure objectively.

I don't know what EVF lag the Sony cameras have. What I feel is they have a shorter shutter lag. I don't know the numbers. What I noticed is that I could take an image of a car at a certain point and when reviewing the image the car was at the position I saw it was in the viewfinder (relative to the white lines in the street). I also took images of people walking trying to capture their foremost (first?) foot the moment before it hit the ground. The majority of the images came out very good. I loved that responsiveness and it was achieved with the electronic first curtain. Great stuff.

The E-M5 isn't far behind the Sony cameras but easy enough to notice.

I'm sure EVF will continue to improve and at some point not even complainers like me will have anything to object. For certain reasons I prefer an EVF over optical ones and I have advocated Live View technology since the Olympus E-330 and then the E-510 (if I recall the numbers correctly).

For my kind of shooting, I too prefer a good EVF (like the one on the E-M5) to an OVF. Obviously, both have pros and cons whose importance will depend on the situation. So this purports to be nothing more than a summary of how I weigh those based on my own personal requirements.

Nothing more, nothing less.

regards,

Jonas

 

[Jonas B]

robonrome wrote:

thanks for sharing your experience Jonas. I'm beginning to wonder however if perhaps I was a better photographer back in 2009 ;-)

You probably are not. That is unless you lost your dedication or set your own bar lower. I know I sometimes have periods when I rather do other things than take images of the world but when in the mood I'm at least as average as I used to be.

regards,

Jonas

 

[Anders W]

Jonas B wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Jonas B wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Vittorio Fracassi wrote:

And an EVF is an EVF no matter how quickly it refreshes, there's always a bit of guessing going on in the photographer's mind.

With the E-M5 EVF set to high refresh, the EVF lag is now down to 30 ms. I am sure this value will continue to shrink in future bodies, especially in decent light. A DSLR must by definition always have a mirror lag when its OVF is used. It would be interesting to know how long that lag is relative to the EVF lag figures we are by now talking about.

Hmm. Now "we" don't use high refresh because of the known problems with the "blinkies" - so this reminds me about your lag test. Did you perform the same test with the camera set to normal refresh rate?

You mean you don't use the high refresh because of the problems with the LV "blinkies"?

Well, I also have my refresh set to normal for the most part, but I wouldn't hesitate to switch to fast if circumstances called for it. After all, there are solutions to the problem you mention.

Yes, I did test the lag time with the E-M5 set to normal refresh as well as the lag time on my old G1. In both cases, I found the lag to be roughly twice that of the E-M5 at high refresh, i.e., on the order of 60 rather than 30 ms. I should emphasize here that these are ballpark estimates. For more precise ones, I would have needed to take a much larger sample than I did or have better equipment at my disposal. If you have access to a 240 fps video camera, for example, you can get more precise estimates with much less work.

Thank you. Your measured result is what one can expect. Also if "ballpark estimates" only I see no reason to further investigate this.

The majority of my images don't demand high refresh rates and the normal refresh rate doesn't exactly make me suffer. I do however feel a difference between the Nex-5N (and I would guess the Nex-7 and the Sony A99) when it comes to feel connected in time with the target. That may be the shutter lag or the EVF, I don't know for sure. The E-M5 is however the best µ4/3 camera I've owned in this regard.

Not sure what you mean here? Are you saying the NEX 5N had more or less EVF lag than the E-M5?

Heh. Re-reading my own message made me confused. I think I tried to say I feel more connected to the target in the time domain when using a Nex-5N than when using my E-M5. This is what I perceive. I don't know if it possible to measure objectively.

I don't know what EVF lag the Sony cameras have. What I feel is they have a shorter shutter lag. I don't know the numbers. What I noticed is that I could take an image of a car at a certain point and when reviewing the image the car was at the position I saw it was in the viewfinder (relative to the white lines in the street). I also took images of people walking trying to capture their foremost (first?) foot the moment before it hit the ground. The majority of the images came out very good. I loved that responsiveness and it was achieved with the electronic first curtain. Great stuff.

The E-M5 isn't far behind the Sony cameras but easy enough to notice.

I doubt (without really having checked things out) that the NEX 5N is better than the E-M5 with respect to the EVF lag. If anything, I'd guess that the E-M5 has less lag at fast refresh and roughly the same at normal refresh. However, the 5N might well have a significantly shorter shutter delay due to that electronic first curtain. My guess is that the extra motions the E-M5 must go through from the moment you press the button until exposure can begin (close shutter, reset sensor, open shutter) make for a significant difference here.

Now where the heck is that global electronic shutter we are all waiting for?

I'm sure EVF will continue to improve and at some point not even complainers like me will have anything to object. For certain reasons I prefer an EVF over optical ones and I have advocated Live View technology since the Olympus E-330 and then the E-510 (if I recall the numbers correctly).

For my kind of shooting, I too prefer a good EVF (like the one on the E-M5) to an OVF. Obviously, both have pros and cons whose importance will depend on the situation. So this purports to be nothing more than a summary of how I weigh those based on my own personal requirements.

Nothing more, nothing less.

regards,

Jonas

 

[g_r_w]

2) ...... Ie, if you treat the MFT stuff as your snapshot kit, it will produce snapshots.

--

http://aminsabet.com

I agree completely with no. 2.

A lot who hold a m4/3 fall into that pocket camera trap and go into happy, carefree, snapshooting mode. If we treat the small cam the same way we treat DSLR, the result is equally stunning. In time when I need to, I'll bring my manfrotto 055 tripod along my OMD. Too massive a size but that was my tripod back during big DSLR time with Canon and heavy glasses. Still a faithfull tripod.

 

[Najinsky]

robonrome wrote:

hi najinksy, sounds like a good plan. if you think you might miss some of the reach of the 100-400, you might consider the 70-300L instead of the 70-200L f4 IS. It's a little heavier, but shorter stowed and just as sharp with the same 4 stop IS.

Interesting thought. I saw that lens appear on shop shelves but didn't really register it as a potential alternative because constant F4 and the relatively light weight were key features of the 70-200, along with IQ up there with the very best. Looking at it logically, it does seem like a sensible compromise, yet the thought of not having the 70-200 brings a chill! The light weight is a critical feature with my carrying style (I carry the camera in my hand rather than over my shoulder).

-Najinsky

 

[Jonas B]

Anders W wrote:

Jonas B wrote:

Heh. Re-reading my own message made me confused. I think I tried to say I feel more connected to the target in the time domain when using a Nex-5N than when using my E-M5. This is what I perceive. I don't know if it possible to measure objectively.

I don't know what EVF lag the Sony cameras have. What I feel is they have a shorter shutter lag. I don't know the numbers. What I noticed is that I could take an image of a car at a certain point and when reviewing the image the car was at the position I saw it was in the viewfinder (relative to the white lines in the street). I also took images of people walking trying to capture their foremost (first?) foot the moment before it hit the ground. The majority of the images came out very good. I loved that responsiveness and it was achieved with the electronic first curtain. Great stuff.

The E-M5 isn't far behind the Sony cameras but easy enough to notice.

I doubt (without really having checked things out) that the NEX 5N is better than the E-M5 with respect to the EVF lag. If anything, I'd guess that the E-M5 has less lag at fast refresh and roughly the same at normal refresh. However, the 5N might well have a significantly shorter shutter delay due to that electronic first curtain. My guess is that the extra motions the E-M5 must go through from the moment you press the button until exposure can begin (close shutter, reset sensor, open shutter) make for a significant difference here.

Now where the heck is that global electronic shutter we are all waiting for?

We seem to agree. An electronic first curtain is a great thing. Now that Panasonic has a camera sporting it we can hope for Olympus to follow suit. Let's hope we even get a global all electronic shutter some day.

Jonas

 

[Anders W]

Jonas B wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Jonas B wrote:

Heh. Re-reading my own message made me confused. I think I tried to say I feel more connected to the target in the time domain when using a Nex-5N than when using my E-M5. This is what I perceive. I don't know if it possible to measure objectively.

I don't know what EVF lag the Sony cameras have. What I feel is they have a shorter shutter lag. I don't know the numbers. What I noticed is that I could take an image of a car at a certain point and when reviewing the image the car was at the position I saw it was in the viewfinder (relative to the white lines in the street). I also took images of people walking trying to capture their foremost (first?) foot the moment before it hit the ground. The majority of the images came out very good. I loved that responsiveness and it was achieved with the electronic first curtain. Great stuff.

The E-M5 isn't far behind the Sony cameras but easy enough to notice.

I doubt (without really having checked things out) that the NEX 5N is better than the E-M5 with respect to the EVF lag. If anything, I'd guess that the E-M5 has less lag at fast refresh and roughly the same at normal refresh. However, the 5N might well have a significantly shorter shutter delay due to that electronic first curtain. My guess is that the extra motions the E-M5 must go through from the moment you press the button until exposure can begin (close shutter, reset sensor, open shutter) make for a significant difference here.

Now where the heck is that global electronic shutter we are all waiting for?

We seem to agree. An electronic first curtain is a great thing. Now that Panasonic has a camera sporting it we can hope for Olympus to follow suit. Let's hope we even get a global all electronic shutter some day.

Jonas

Panasonic has a camera supporting an electronic first curtain? Regrettably no. They have two cameras supporting a rolling electronic shutter for stills (G5 and GH3). That's commendable too but not the same thing.

 

[sansbury]

Very few people seem to cry about not having a Phase One IQ180 even though it can--in the right circumstances--greatly exceed the capabilities of any FX camera. That shot you took with your D800E that looks great? Well, with the MFDB it could look even better.

Of course, only a few professionals and lottery winners will ever be able to afford one. Whereas, many (most, all?) µ4/3 buyers could buy a FX camera if they chose. So they wring their hands over the choice. It is like the old joke--pity the man with two watches, for he never knows what time it is.

To the OP, maybe the answer is to only take pictures with your 5D2, and be happy to use your smartphone for the 90% of the time you don't feel like carrying the big rig. If you use the µ4/3 as a snapshot camera, and the snapshots end up meaning little to you, then don't bother lugging gear to take them. An iPhone wielded by a decent photographer takes excellent snapshots.

The real question for me would be, if you took the µ4/3 camera to the same scenes you took the 5D2, would you get the same keepers? Unless you are really pulling on one of the deep strengths of FX like heavy bokeh/high ISO, my guess is "no."

 

[robonrome]

sansbury wrote:

Very few people seem to cry about not having a Phase One IQ180 even though it can--in the right circumstances--greatly exceed the capabilities of any FX camera. That shot you took with your D800E that looks great? Well, with the MFDB it could look even better.

Of course, only a few professionals and lottery winners will ever be able to afford one. Whereas, many (most, all?) µ4/3 buyers could buy a FX camera if they chose. So they wring their hands over the choice. It is like the old joke--pity the man with two watches, for he never knows what time it is.

To the OP, maybe the answer is to only take pictures with your 5D2, and be happy to use your smartphone for the 90% of the time you don't feel like carrying the big rig. If you use the µ4/3 as a snapshot camera, and the snapshots end up meaning little to you, then don't bother lugging gear to take them. An iPhone wielded by a decent photographer takes excellent snapshots.

The real question for me would be, if you took the µ4/3 camera to the same scenes you took the 5D2, would you get the same keepers? Unless you are really pulling on one of the deep strengths of FX like heavy bokeh/high ISO, my guess is "no."

thanks Sansbury for these thoughts and I note several others who likewise insightlfully point out that a camera used to take snapshots will, well turn out snapshots. This resonates with me and I think is at least a signifincat part of the differences I perceived (between my m43 and FF).

I did take both the 5D3 with 16-35mk2 and the G5 with Pany 7-14 out on the weekend to just take shots with either swapping between the two at will. Not sure I learned much other than don't let the front element of that 7-14 see the sun (damned flare spots) but I will persevere

 

[Seamus Warren]

eques wrote:

Simple law of physics: FF has 4 times the area of (m)FT. This means:

1. A 10MP FF sensor basically dissolves as much a 40MP mFT sensor. And there are no 40 MP mFT sensors. 16 MP mFT sensors are equivalent to 4 MP FF sensors!!

2. A mFT lens has to dissolve 4x better than an FF lens. - And non does! Some however manage to do 1,5 times the resolution. (see Photozone lens reviews)

So there have to be used all sorts of firmware ... workarounds of these basic facts, but if you blow up your images, you still can see the difference.

Still - I have no porters and never want them, so I am happy with mFT, it beeing much better than any P&S for the same reasaons.

Peter

So a five year old FF is still better at capturing images in low light situations than a current M43 or APS-C with the latest in hardware and software engineering?