Oh yeah, just the way to get less camera shake. Hold the camera at arm's
length so as to view the Chimp Screen.
-----Original Message-----
From: Moose
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 2:54 PM
To: Olympus Camera Discussion
Subject: Re: [OM] Nikon 1 V1, was: Two-wheeling "kit"
On 6/1/2012 7:52 AM, Frank Wijsmuller wrote:
> 2012/5/31 Moose
>
>> Note on the first page that the V1 is actually larger than the larger
>> sensor Sony NEX-C3 (APS-C) and Oly E-PM1 (4/3).
> That is until you add an EVF, which is included in the V1.
Ah yes, a matter of taste. Unless the LCD is poorly implemented, I wouldn't
want the EVF. Another fiddly bit to mess
with and make the camera larger an a more awkward shape. I would avoid a
compact camera that required an add-on like
that to be useful.
Oly claims HyperCrystal LCD with Anti-Reflective coating, so one would hope
it would be visible in almost any light. As
usual, they are behind the competition on LCD pixel count.
I am more than content with LCD alone, if it is well done. I would be
happier with the Canon G11 without the extra size,
weight and cost of the optical viewfinder. I'd guess I've looked through it
maybe 3 or 4 times in over three years of
regular use, just for curiosity. I don't recall using it to take a shot.
Mostly, I simply forget it is there.
The Sony would probably be better to use with LCD than the Oly, as it is
higher rez and partially articulated, giving
more flexibility in use and in avoiding direct reflections.
>> I just skimmed the V1 review, and I have to say I think it would drive me
>> crazy, as would the little Oly. The Sony actually looks like the most
>> usable of the tiny ILCs, and with the best IQ, to boot.
>> <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonynexc3/>
>>
> Please explain how the availability of different lenses is included in
> your
> definition of 'usable'. I think it should be an important part of it, and
> that the Oly becomes *much* more usable then.
>
> I would also include in 'usable' that the Sony has no IBIS.
Sorry, should have been more specific. I was only talking about level and
means of camera control, automation vs. user
control and controls on the camera body vs. the need to use menus for common
functions. Given the relatively large size
of lens I would choose, a slightly larger camera body makes no difference.
> It is also not
> available in their DSLR lenses, as the DSLR camera's have IBIS. So you
> only
> have IS in the quite limited dedicated E-mount selection (neither the 16mm
> pancake or the 30mm macro have IBIS), and never when you use a DSLR lens
> with the adapter. And if you add the size of the lenses in 'usable', Oly
> made the better choice with their 4 by 3 sensor, allowing significant
> smaller lenses (or better edge quality, depending on what choices are made
> in lens design).
You caught me there. I've never looked seriously at ILC/EVILs, so
miss/forget some differences. I looked closely at the
early µ4/3 cameras, and rejected them. IQ wasn't up to snuff. And as I've
said before, the form factor doesn't make
sense for me. Once one reaches a certain size, not pocket/beltable, I
haven't yet seen a reason to care if the camera is
a little bit larger and stay with a DSLR. But that's my taste and style of
working.
The OM-D and new Pannys look to have fixed all those IQ issues, and then
some. I could see using an OM-D, although I
prefer a fully articulated screen. But that would be a costly switch, and
I'll wait and see how it plays out in use.
>> If looking at ILCs with zoom, and considering the lens sizes, I can't see
>> any point in looking for the tiniest ones.
>> Rather, I would look for good on camera controls that allow one to
>> control it without getting into menus.
>>
>> Me? I still think a smallish, APS DSLR and a good compact is the best
>> combo.
>>
> Depends. If you talk about money you have a point, as the top mirrorless
> camera's and lenses are quite expensive. But my thinking is along these
> lines:
>
> The top-of-the-line APS DSLR's are not that much smaller compared to the
> full-frame ones.
Ah well, here I'm going to disagree with you. I have and have extensively
used 5D (13,200 shots) I and 60D (6,700 shots)
in all kinds of situations, including extensively out in the 'wilds'
carrying then on long hikes and mountainous
terrain. I've also carried both at once quite a few times.
In such practical use, the 60D is noticeably smaller and lighter than the
5D. Not that I wouldn't carry the 5D, but
there is a practical difference to me.
> So if you're going for top quality, go full-frame (and no,
> it is not really fair to compare a 5D classic with a 60D).
Well, I'm not sure what your definition of 'fair' is, but the 5D and 60D are
what I have to compare.
If you mean the 60D should be compared to later FF cameras, sure. Still,
after seeing comparisons with the 5DII, I was
seriously unimpressed, especially with high ISO plaid patterns. I had, and
loved, the 60D before the 5DIII appeared.
It's probably a good thing the 5DIII doesn't have an articulated screen,
though. Still, at some point, one needs to
balance equipment size, weight, cost, etc. against desired results. The 60D
is vastly more than needed for the web
images I mostly make and fully up to the limits of my 13" wide printer and
printing skills.
Given unlimited funds, and a bearer, an MF camera with Phase One back would
be even better in IQ, but better in a
practical way for me?
> The smaller APS DSLR's are getting smaller,
I'm not sure they can get any smaller than they have. I just held a
600D/Rebel 3Ti. That is a mighty small camera, and
the 15-85 mounted on it is modest in size and weight. About the only thing
that kept me from a 600D was the single
control wheel and lack of top LCD. It doesn't give away anything in IQ to
the 7D and 60D.
> but still have the big lenses and a relative limited selection of
> dedicated lenses (the serious glass is almost all for FF, with the size,
> weight and price penalty).
Again, it depends on what you mean by 'serious'. It's important to
understand that the Canon 'L' glass isn't about image
quality alone. If you read tests and [way too many] user reviews, it becomes
clear that they are largely about constant,
large apertures, ruggedness, water resistance and, not least, prestige. Yes,
many of them are optically wonderful, but
so are many non-L lenses and some Ls are optically less than first rank.
Optically, the EF-S 10-22 is better than some WA L lenses and the 15-85 is L
quality, just to name two I know about. But
they aren't built like tanks and don't cost the Earth (Hurray!!).
You can knock third party glass, but some of it is excellent. Again, for
what use do you intend the lenses? The Canon
28-300 L is wildly larger, heavier and more expensive than the Tamron, but
optically similar in quality, except ...
Except that the Tamron is a wonderful semi-macro lens at 300 mm, which I use
very extensively - and the Canon isn't.
The Tamron is also soooo much easier to carry. OK. so it's not as tough. If
it breaks, I can buy a new one - and still
have paid no more than for the Canon. So far, it's out over 10,000 images
with only one minor injury from impact that I
was able to repair myself.
Some lens IQ issues that mattered a lot with film and analog reproduction
aren't as important with digital. Contrast is
almost a non-issue to me, for example, vignetting and CA not much more.
Convert Raw for a lens with ACR profile and
vignetting and CA disappear. Linear distortion is also easily correctable,
although pixel level clarity will suffer in
parts of the image.
Even apparent resolution may not be so much of a problem. When I talk about
the S100 below, I tend to forget that I
depend on FocusMagic with it. That sensor/lens and software are just made
for each other. FM, radius 2, and clear detail
at 100% just appears, like Magic.
Just as the camera with you takes better pictures than the one home on the
shelf, the lens on the camera takes better
pictures than the one in the bag, car or at home. When I'm shooting, I'm on
the move, and switching subjects and
distance continuously. Working with lots of lenses and changing them often
just doesn't work for me.
If I were a pro, looking for that great wildlife shot, I might take hours or
days to get the shot. As it is, when the
coyote shows up for a few moments, the lens on the camera is what's going to
be used. It may be the finest WA in the
world, but the shot will be much poorer than my trusty zoom at 300 mm. I've
lost more shots to not being quick enough
than to lens IQ. Recently, my camera was in the back seat when I saw a hawk
drop vertically from a power pole. Quick
stop - if the camera were next to me, I'd have the shot of hawk with prey.
Extra movement on my part and a few extra
seconds - no shot.
If not limited to Canon L lenses, the glass selection is vast. And the Canon
mount allows adapters for many other
mounts, especially OM ... I assume all but the lens adapter part to be true
for the other brands, but I just don't keep
track.
> The better compacts are not really much smaller then a mirrorless camera
> with a small fixed lens. Actually, for my own use I put a 20mm (40mm eq)
> pancake on my e-p2 if I want to travel compact, maybe add a 14mm pancake
> in
> a pocket, and/or the 45mm. Almost too light to notice. For more serious
> work I use bigger lenses (4/3, OM).
Taste/working style again. I'm a long range zoom guy. So the small primes
are of no interest to me and the ILCs are
awkward, dogleg shaped thingies.
The S100 is tiny, 24-120 mm eq., astonishing IQ at ISO 80, very good up to
400 and usable to 1600. As good as the best
ILCs at 80, competitive to 200 and there when they wouldn't be above that.
> You specifically mention ILCs with zoom, and those zooms are getting
> smaller all the time. The 14-42mm X Panasonic is just as big as the 20mm
> pancake.
Personally, not interested. I've done 28-85, and find it restrictive.
Honestly, I'd prefer the S100, or a 600D with 18-270.
> Actually I predict that the major development money of the lens
> builders will be in making more compact lenses with a limited range, and
> that the trend in increasing zoom factors has come to an end. For APS to
> compete with mirrorless, for mirrorless to compete with the other
> mirrorless brands.
I think you are wrong, and all ranges of zooms will continue to be
developed. If long focal range zooms come to an
end, I won't be buying new. ;-)
Thanks for the discussion,
Zoomy Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|