Supposedly, there is an Olympus announcement coming around the end of August.
Maybe, obviously, the PEN E-PL7 will be announced for immediate sale. The replacement for the OM-D E-M5 should be announced, as well. However, I'm more interested to see the final realization of the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens, plus whether they've got the 7-14mm f/2.8 ready.
The ultra wide angle lens is important to me, especially since I've been photographing at skate parks lately. I don't really care for fish eye lenses and Olympus still sells theirs--and a certain BMX rider has been on me to buy it, for that exaggerated perspective. However, f/2.8 vs. f/3.5 makes for the difference between getting the shot and not. (My first thought about this lens was that it would be great for the real estate market, but they're generally fine with point and shoot cameras.)
Of course, is it as important as it was even five years ago? Putting an LED array on the hot shoe will provide sufficient lighting that the BMX rider will be blinded temporarily while moving close. Plenty of people have mentioned flash, which amounts to the same problem. Studio lights with massive battery power? No, thanks.
The Nikon D810 might provide a better low light experience with the right weather-sealed ultra wide angle lens. It had better at the weight, the size, and at the price. Remember that the sensor itself mimics the size of 135 Format film--roughly 24x36mm and that is not huge or heavy.
Of course, the slippery Nikon Df has the sensor from the D4 with extra low light sensitivity, but it will probably be a handful to use for sports.
In any case, the Olympus E-M1 and Panasonic GH4 will work well for me, and hopefully, the new lenses will be everything I need. I'm especially looking forward to replacing Panasonic's dismal 35-100mm f/2.8 lens with the 40-150mm f/2.8. (It's amazing how different their 12-35mm and 35-100mm are. I never ever hear negative remarks about the 12-35mm f/2.8 lens.)
Of course, the 40-150mm f/2.8 can't really replace my 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 because of the lack of reach. Having the 135 Format equivalent of 400mm is awesome, especially when it's sharp. (Panasonic's 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6 doesn't seem to be sharp anywhere, but it's small and light with a 52mm filter size that covers a lot of plastic vs 67mm with a large front element. Can't expect much.)
If the 40-150mm is as sharp as my Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0, I'd be thrilled and amazed. I don't expect that. I expect it to be somewhere in-between the 50-200mm and the 35-100mm f/2.0 in all aspects, with the price, also. This is the case with the 12-40mm f/2.8 and the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and 14-35mm f/2.0.
The 7-14mm f/2.8 really signals an end of Four-Thirds for me. I looked at the Four-Thirds 7-14mm f/4.0, which is an amazing lens, but couldn't get past the f/4.0. I would be using it on micro Four-Thirds equipment but it would negate any advantage the newer sensors have. Using it on the E-1 and E-5 would be practically perfect though. However, these are not really landscape tools and the way I would want to use it would not be practical, even if I spend a lot of time in bright sunlight. I shoot at night also. (This is also a sticking point with the 8mm f/3.5 fish eye lens.)
The price of the 7-14mm f/2.8 is going to be high. I'm guessing that it will be around US$1999.99 and the 40-150mm f/2.8 should be around US$1499.99.
Update 2014.08.17: The E-M1 is rumored to get 4K recording? It doesn't even do well with the recording abilities it has. It would be great to see a huge upgrade to 1080p, complete with high bit rates, but I can't imagine that happening either. It was a bit amusing to see someone submitted Olympus' high end testing cameras as evidence that Olympus can do video. If you're in the market to record and test vehicle crashes, I'm sure they're just fine. I only want to record 1080p and 4K at the moment.
Update 2014.09.25: The 40-150mm f/2.8 will be released in November for US$1499.99. The micro Four-Thirds 1.4x teleconverter will be US$349.99, which is about $90 cheaper than the Four-Thirds version.
The E-M1 version 2.0 firmware included many little updates but no 4K video. Supposedly, there is still some hope for that, and some individual is working on firmware hacks, but what will Olympus do? They couldn't even save the majority of my settings.
I have yet to be invited to a pre-release even for the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens. I'd certainly like to make sure it's worth the money. I continue to hope that micro Four-Thirds will work for me, whether Panasonic or Olympus. However, the Nikon D750 looks a great product.
I've considered a trade-in of my Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens for the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens. If I end up with a GH4, as well as the E-M1, I'll probably need the 35-100mm lens.
Update 2014.12.18: Now that the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens and matching teleconverter are available, I'm looking forward to the 7-14mm f/2.8 and I'm sure others will be looking for the 300mm f/4.0. I'm wondering if the 300mm lens will be a made-to-order item, as is the Four-Thirds 300mm f/2.8 lens.
The Four-Thirds 300mm f/2.8 lens is US$6499.99, a bit more expensive than the 90-250mm f/2.8 lens that has been US5499.99 but is now $4899.99 at Adorama. I don't expect that the micro Four-Thirds version will be close but would US$1999.99 - $2499.99 be unexpected? If it's more than that, there will likely be resistance from people who would actually buy it. It's a valid point. There are plenty of people who complain about the price of every higher-priced lens, fairly priced or not, especially when they're not going to buy one. Should lens makers sell the wares for less than it costs to research, design, and manufacture them?
Showing posts with label Df. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Df. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Portrait lens: 85mm f/1.2 and equivalents
Since the recent announcements of the FujiFilm and Panasonic/Leica 85mm f/1.2 equivalent lenses, I thought I'd take a look at such lenses from the camera makers themselves.
I'm not taking a look at the (usually ridiculous) Depth of Field argument. I'm more interested in trying to understand why these lenses work and why anyone but a professional would buy one. My gut feeling is--if you complain about the price, you don't know how or don't have a way to make money with the lens.
I'm not a portrait photographer, though I've tried modeling-type photography, and I've done many what I'll call quick portraits. When I'm photographing high school sports, it's often easy and desirable to get a quick portrait of the athletes. I often do this with either of two lenses which have effective 135 format ranges of 70-200mm for one and 100-400mm for the other. Using them at about 1 meter/3.3 feet works well.
The 135 format has had an 85mm lens for portraiture for a while. Canon has an f/1.2 lens and Nikon has an f/1.4 lens. Barely touching on Depth of Field, we don't want it so thin that only the nose is in focus, unless we're working in reconstructive surgery, of course. Of course, at a distance, it's less likely that we'll isolate facial features and likely that we'll just isolate our subject.
I'd suggest that any of these lenses are going to do the job, although I wonder which will do it best. It's becoming more difficult to find really bad lenses, unlike 10 years ago and earlier. For those who really feel that they want to pick up a 30 year old lens because it was great, you might want to re-think that. I'd suggest that any lens was great because it was better than other available lenses from the time and had a photographer been given current equipment, he'd likely never go back.
Besides these few, there is also the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 85mm f/1.4 lens that generally (there may be a Nikon version having a focus confirmation) has no electronics with an exceptionally low price, US$349.99, I believe. This one exists for many mounts. It's not likely to be used as a backup for a wedding photographer's main system, just because it has no electronics.
The prices of the Nikon 1 system, FujiFilm X-system, and Panasonic/Leica micro Four-Thirds lenses are quite high, but they do have a rather large maximum aperture at f/1.2. Shooting in natural light will be enhanced, as you'll be able to shoot at more difficult times.
It's a bit surprising that the Panasonic/Leica lens is somewhat larger than the FujiFilm lens, but I'm hoping that the companies have put more effort into resolving optical anomalies optically, rather than through software tricks, even though Panasonic was recently given an award for their software tricks. Is FujiFilm's lens too small to be optically amazing and will it need tricks to correct for optical problems?
Obviously, the Nikon 1-system lens is the odd man out. I don't expect professionals to be using the system, but it could be handy. That said, US$899.95 is a large price for "handy".
If I were leaning toward buying a combination at the moment, I'd buy the FujiFilm X-E2 with their lens. While my first guess is that the Panasonic/Leica design is better (to go with the price), the GX7 is too small and the GH3 isn't good enough photographically to make use of the lens. Of course, there is the Olympus E-M1 and it is much better than the GH3 and rather a bit larger than the GX7. However, the FujiFilm combination ($2399.98 X-E2 vs $2999.98 E-M1) is less expensive and the sensor has much more to it (ignoring size, concentrating on the filter pattern), especially if raw development software can take advantage of the advantages it offers. At roughly US$4100, the Nikon Df and Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G lens would be a high image quality alternative, with the sensor and the image processor of the D4. It all depends on how little depth of field you really need. See what I wrote here.
Of course, a wedding photographer is probably already equipped with a Nikon D800 or Canon 5DMkIII and won't need another system but it would be useful to keep another focal length at the ready, without much weight involved. I often keep the Panasonic GH3 around my neck while using the Olympus E-5, so I can cover telephoto and wide views.
Update 2014.03.16: I've seen a few people rate the FujiFilm and Leica/Panasonic lenses and they are both rated very well. I wonder how they would be rated if they were switched to the people who rated the other brand well. For US$999.99, I'd feel a bit better if there were imperfections because finding imperfections at a full price of US$1599.99 would make me unhappy. I guess that explains why I have two lenses worth more than US$2000 each. They're practically flawless.
I bet the E-M1 and Leica/Panasonic lens would be amazing and matched well. Equally, the X-T1 and the 56mm lens would be matched well. The lower density sensor with FujiFilm bodies would equal better image quality, but which lens is actually better. In any case, who needs a dSLR to get those special wedding photos now?
Update 2014.03.19: FujiFilm lens review here and Leica/Panasonic lens review here. The Panasonic lens seems to be the slightest degree of better (except vignetting wide open), but is it US$600 better?
Update 2015.05.21: Recently, Panasonic introduced a budget portrait focal length lens: 42.5mm f/1.7 with Power OIS. At roughly US$400, it should be a good deal for the majority of users who don't need a more razor-thin depth of field.
Further back, FujiFilm introduced a different APD-version of their 56mm f/1.2 lens that produced a more pleasant bokeh. It's priced about the same as the Panasonic/Leica lens.
I'm not taking a look at the (usually ridiculous) Depth of Field argument. I'm more interested in trying to understand why these lenses work and why anyone but a professional would buy one. My gut feeling is--if you complain about the price, you don't know how or don't have a way to make money with the lens.
I'm not a portrait photographer, though I've tried modeling-type photography, and I've done many what I'll call quick portraits. When I'm photographing high school sports, it's often easy and desirable to get a quick portrait of the athletes. I often do this with either of two lenses which have effective 135 format ranges of 70-200mm for one and 100-400mm for the other. Using them at about 1 meter/3.3 feet works well.
The 135 format has had an 85mm lens for portraiture for a while. Canon has an f/1.2 lens and Nikon has an f/1.4 lens. Barely touching on Depth of Field, we don't want it so thin that only the nose is in focus, unless we're working in reconstructive surgery, of course. Of course, at a distance, it's less likely that we'll isolate facial features and likely that we'll just isolate our subject.
I'd suggest that any of these lenses are going to do the job, although I wonder which will do it best. It's becoming more difficult to find really bad lenses, unlike 10 years ago and earlier. For those who really feel that they want to pick up a 30 year old lens because it was great, you might want to re-think that. I'd suggest that any lens was great because it was better than other available lenses from the time and had a photographer been given current equipment, he'd likely never go back.
- Canon 85mm f/1.2 US$2199.00
- Nikon 85mm f/1.4 US$1699.95
- Nikon 1 32mm f/1.2 US$899.95
- FujiFilm 56mm f/1.2 US$999.99
- Panasonic/Leica 42.5mm f/1.2 US$1599.99
Besides these few, there is also the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 85mm f/1.4 lens that generally (there may be a Nikon version having a focus confirmation) has no electronics with an exceptionally low price, US$349.99, I believe. This one exists for many mounts. It's not likely to be used as a backup for a wedding photographer's main system, just because it has no electronics.
The prices of the Nikon 1 system, FujiFilm X-system, and Panasonic/Leica micro Four-Thirds lenses are quite high, but they do have a rather large maximum aperture at f/1.2. Shooting in natural light will be enhanced, as you'll be able to shoot at more difficult times.
It's a bit surprising that the Panasonic/Leica lens is somewhat larger than the FujiFilm lens, but I'm hoping that the companies have put more effort into resolving optical anomalies optically, rather than through software tricks, even though Panasonic was recently given an award for their software tricks. Is FujiFilm's lens too small to be optically amazing and will it need tricks to correct for optical problems?
Obviously, the Nikon 1-system lens is the odd man out. I don't expect professionals to be using the system, but it could be handy. That said, US$899.95 is a large price for "handy".
If I were leaning toward buying a combination at the moment, I'd buy the FujiFilm X-E2 with their lens. While my first guess is that the Panasonic/Leica design is better (to go with the price), the GX7 is too small and the GH3 isn't good enough photographically to make use of the lens. Of course, there is the Olympus E-M1 and it is much better than the GH3 and rather a bit larger than the GX7. However, the FujiFilm combination ($2399.98 X-E2 vs $2999.98 E-M1) is less expensive and the sensor has much more to it (ignoring size, concentrating on the filter pattern), especially if raw development software can take advantage of the advantages it offers. At roughly US$4100, the Nikon Df and Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G lens would be a high image quality alternative, with the sensor and the image processor of the D4. It all depends on how little depth of field you really need. See what I wrote here.
Of course, a wedding photographer is probably already equipped with a Nikon D800 or Canon 5DMkIII and won't need another system but it would be useful to keep another focal length at the ready, without much weight involved. I often keep the Panasonic GH3 around my neck while using the Olympus E-5, so I can cover telephoto and wide views.
Update 2014.03.16: I've seen a few people rate the FujiFilm and Leica/Panasonic lenses and they are both rated very well. I wonder how they would be rated if they were switched to the people who rated the other brand well. For US$999.99, I'd feel a bit better if there were imperfections because finding imperfections at a full price of US$1599.99 would make me unhappy. I guess that explains why I have two lenses worth more than US$2000 each. They're practically flawless.
I bet the E-M1 and Leica/Panasonic lens would be amazing and matched well. Equally, the X-T1 and the 56mm lens would be matched well. The lower density sensor with FujiFilm bodies would equal better image quality, but which lens is actually better. In any case, who needs a dSLR to get those special wedding photos now?
Update 2014.03.19: FujiFilm lens review here and Leica/Panasonic lens review here. The Panasonic lens seems to be the slightest degree of better (except vignetting wide open), but is it US$600 better?
Update 2015.05.21: Recently, Panasonic introduced a budget portrait focal length lens: 42.5mm f/1.7 with Power OIS. At roughly US$400, it should be a good deal for the majority of users who don't need a more razor-thin depth of field.
Further back, FujiFilm introduced a different APD-version of their 56mm f/1.2 lens that produced a more pleasant bokeh. It's priced about the same as the Panasonic/Leica lens.
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Fresh start: Olympus E-M1 or FujiFilm X-T1
I think a big question is being asked: If you're just starting, would you choose the Olympus E-M1 or FujiFilm X-T1?
Despite the viability of the Nikon D7100 and Canon 70D, I think that anyone serious enough to buy a camera body between US$1000 and US$2000, will be wanting the most functionality and the least weight to take photography seriously. Sure, you can buy older, cheaper lenses for the D7100 and 70D, but the newer, for-digital lenses cost quite a lot, and they're big.
The E-M1 and X-T1 are similar in many ways. They're loosely based on the company's SLRs of the 1970s. They have a good group of lenses made for the digital world. They have awesome electronic viewfinders and a sliding rear panel.
FujiFilm has that great X-Trans II sensor with its unconventional, non-Bayer pattern color filter, so even though both bodies have roughly 16 MP available in photos, FujiFilm's sensor should give better results. Of course, a lot of this depends on the output and processing. So far, raw processing has not been great, as development companies struggle to learn how to deal with the new patterns. (Phase One Capture One 7 Pro seems to be better than most and Adobe seems to be worse than most.) Given that Olympus is using a typical color filter on its sensor, it's much easier to get great results from raw development applications processing the files. As software developers acclimate themselves to the color attributes, the FujiFilm raw files should prove victorious.
Tests I've seen using large prints have shown that people can tell little difference between different sizes of sensors, even though advocates will tell you that the larger sensor is definitely much, much better. The truth is--it's difficult to find any current camera from micro Four-Thirds on up that will produce bad photos given similar circumstances.
Operationally, the X-T1 has the advantage of physical controls. There are many on the top plate. However, the E-M1 has the advantage of the Super Control Panel. It's very easy to make quick adjustments using the rear display. There is no room for a display on the top plate and it's just as well, seeing as how the display on the Nikon Df is not quite as useful as we could hope. Given how big the Df is over the X-T1 or E-M1, you'd think that there could have been a better compromise made by Nikon.
Having the exposure compensation on the top plate, easy to find, is a win, and as I had to search and search for the control on the E-M1, the X-T1 wins easily. I don't think having the ISO sensitivity control on the top plate helps a bit but FujiFilm has placed it there, as the film speed dial was there on the Fujica SLRs. It would be more helpful if the company would abolish their ISO sensitivity limitations for raw files. I'm not sure how useful any file will be at 51,200, but I would want to process such a file with a raw development application to smush (or schmush, if you prefer--that is a highly technical term for reduction) the noise (and not the image detail) in pleasing ways. Of course, back in the 1970s, we were generally restricted to ASA 400/DIN 27 film and 1/1000th of a second fastest shutter speed and a maximum aperture of f/1.2.
On available lenses, the E-M1 has the advantage with two major brands bringing lenses to market over a few years. FujiFilm is coming along with quite a few good focal lengths, while Olympus is making some interesting choices (the death of their Four-Thirds bodies gives way to HG-like lenses for micro Four-Thirds) nowadays and Panasonic is trying to use Canon's lenses as a guide. It's a bit difficult to tell the better lenses from Olympus, except for price and most recently, the "PRO" label. Panasonic's X label isn't exactly helpful, but that signals their best lenses, and FujiFilm is using XF to mark theirs. Considering third party lenses, FujiFilm has the advantage with electronically-enabled lenses, while Olympus has the advantage with lenses that have no more than a micro Four-Thirds mount. If Schneider and Tamron would actually produce the micro Four-Thirds lenses announced, there would be some interesting alternatives. Schneider, 2013 has come and gone and your 14mm f/2.0 lens doesn't even seem to be in the hands of testers.
Of course, handling will be the big deal for any camera body. As I've said too many times, SLRs from the 1970s were slippery. Mount a heavy lens and you'd better pay attention more than with a current body. The E-M1 and X-T1 have similar grips, and the E-M1 grip was sufficient for light, native lenses. Putting Four-Thirds lenses on the body made the grip uncomfortable for me. This isn't a problem for the X-T1, unless of course, you buy a third party adapter but then, that wasn't planned by the company, whereas the Four-Thirds lenses were meant to work with the E-M1, even though it still seems like an afterthought. You can buy a battery grip for each to help with balance and shooting time.
I found the electronic viewfinder of the E-M1 to be so good that I could give up an optical viewfinder. The viewfinder on the X-T1 is supposedly better, with less lag and a better refresh rate in lower light. The information displayed on the X-T1 in portrait orientation is usefully re-arranged.
If I were starting fresh, I'm not 100% sure what I'd pick but I suspect that it would be the X-T1.
Update 2014.02.17: I've been thinking how the Panasonic GH4 interrupts these thoughts. However, if still photography is my goal, these two will likely still be better choices. I viewed a video today by Guilio Sciorio, a Panasonic Lumix Luminary, and he commented that the GH4 is a much better shooter than the GH3. It's good that you can pull an 8 MP image out of a video file. I've also see Panasonic marketing materials saying that the image quality is better than many other bodies, but it didn't specify stills or video. The video quality is a given, but stills quality? I'm not so sure.
Update 2014.02.22: What Digital Camera gave the X-T1 a score of 93% and the E-M1, 92%. This is my go-to magazine, as I don't see advertising or personal preference influencing the outcome.
Some of the same things bother me, such as the rear display being out in the open, and only sliding or flipping, plus the battery is too small, though the E-M1 has fairly good battery life but the grip is uncomfortable (for me, especially with Four-Thirds lenses) because they're using a small battery and somehow they couldn't see to make it more like the E-5 or GH3. I thought both of these bodies needed two SD Card slots also. At the camera store the other day, they'd mentioned that the X-T1 bodies are trickling into their stores, and are already sold by the time they arrive. Obviously, the E-M1 has been available longer but it's being bought at a good pace, also, despite the size and price complaints from various micro Four-Thirds users.
Update 2014.03.01: It's March already? I spent a little time with an X-T1 yesterday. I didn't photograph anything, so I don't have photos to share. I wanted to compare the size and get a feel for how things worked in the confines of the store. It felt small, as the E-M1 feels small to me. The grip was smaller but better shaped. If they'd put a bigger battery in the grip, two of my doubts would have been handled at once. Given that I wouldn't be putting huge lenses on it, I don't think I'd have as much of a comfort issue as I would with the E-M1 and Four-Thirds lenses.
This blog entry is all about starting fresh, and I think either one is a good choice. The number of manual controls is over the top on the X-T1. I'm not sure if that is a good thing. I don't frequently change the ISO sensitivity setting, so I don't need a manual control just for that, just as it was in the film days, when they had it accessible but somewhat secondary to the shutter speed.
The build was solid, similar to the E-M1. It felt better than the Canon 70D or the Nikon D7100--its main rivals, although the grip (and battery inside the grip) was the advantage for the dSLRs.. Once the weather-sealed lenses are available, it should be a very potent package.
Update 2014.03.20: I've seen a lot of good reviews about the X-T1. However, a lot of those seem to be people enamoured of the sheer number of physical controls on the top plate, not necessarily the actual performance, which seems to be very much like the X-E2. The X-E2 is very good, mind, but it's a bit sluggish (and the X-T1 is similar) compared to the E-M1 or the GH3 or the D7100 or the 70D. FujiFilm has come a long way toward making their system desirable. For casual users, I think it should be number 1 because it gives you great images with a minimum of fuss and the film simulation modes give people more of an idea of what to expect than Standard, Natural, or Vivid would suggest. The top shutter speed of 1/4000th of a second seems a bit limiting, especially with the 56mm f/1.2 lens. Neutral Density filters come to mind, though.
That said, the E-M1 is very quick. For sports, it's easy to choose the E-M1, even over the D7100 or 70D. That 1/8000th of a second shutter speed is helpful in many situations, as I have found with the Olympus E-5. The E-M1 is not a body for the casual user. The E-M5 is a better choice for casual users and it is less expensive.
Update 2014.11.06: I'm thinking about the X-T1 again. There is a Rokinon (Samyang/Bower...) 8mm f/2.8 fisheye lens that is available for FujiFilm X-Mount cameras.
The 135 Format equivalent would be 12mm--plus this is an f/2.8 lens, not f/3.5 and that is somewhat more useful. Add to that FujiFilm's sensor handling low light a bit better than Olympus', there are possibilities that I could get some skate park photos in lower light, with higher image quality. It's not guaranteed but it's possible.
The only thing that worries me is that the X-T1 might not be responsive enough. That was always my worry. The E-M1 is extremely responsive, as are the GH3 and GH4. FujiFilm seems to save money by not putting strong processors in the camera bodies. For many people, this isn't a problem. Casual photographers won't have a problem with it but sports photography doesn't wait for you to futz with your camera. When I tried the X-T1, I had wished for a running event outside the store, so I could give it a good workout. Unfortunately, the lenses I want/need for sports still aren't available.
Rokinon seems to have several lenses available, and even though they're manually-operated lenses, they should be good for FujiFilm users. There are more available for micro Four-Thirds though they're not all of the same lenses.
I'm still considering what's best for me.
Despite the viability of the Nikon D7100 and Canon 70D, I think that anyone serious enough to buy a camera body between US$1000 and US$2000, will be wanting the most functionality and the least weight to take photography seriously. Sure, you can buy older, cheaper lenses for the D7100 and 70D, but the newer, for-digital lenses cost quite a lot, and they're big.
The E-M1 and X-T1 are similar in many ways. They're loosely based on the company's SLRs of the 1970s. They have a good group of lenses made for the digital world. They have awesome electronic viewfinders and a sliding rear panel.
FujiFilm has that great X-Trans II sensor with its unconventional, non-Bayer pattern color filter, so even though both bodies have roughly 16 MP available in photos, FujiFilm's sensor should give better results. Of course, a lot of this depends on the output and processing. So far, raw processing has not been great, as development companies struggle to learn how to deal with the new patterns. (Phase One Capture One 7 Pro seems to be better than most and Adobe seems to be worse than most.) Given that Olympus is using a typical color filter on its sensor, it's much easier to get great results from raw development applications processing the files. As software developers acclimate themselves to the color attributes, the FujiFilm raw files should prove victorious.
Tests I've seen using large prints have shown that people can tell little difference between different sizes of sensors, even though advocates will tell you that the larger sensor is definitely much, much better. The truth is--it's difficult to find any current camera from micro Four-Thirds on up that will produce bad photos given similar circumstances.
Operationally, the X-T1 has the advantage of physical controls. There are many on the top plate. However, the E-M1 has the advantage of the Super Control Panel. It's very easy to make quick adjustments using the rear display. There is no room for a display on the top plate and it's just as well, seeing as how the display on the Nikon Df is not quite as useful as we could hope. Given how big the Df is over the X-T1 or E-M1, you'd think that there could have been a better compromise made by Nikon.
Having the exposure compensation on the top plate, easy to find, is a win, and as I had to search and search for the control on the E-M1, the X-T1 wins easily. I don't think having the ISO sensitivity control on the top plate helps a bit but FujiFilm has placed it there, as the film speed dial was there on the Fujica SLRs. It would be more helpful if the company would abolish their ISO sensitivity limitations for raw files. I'm not sure how useful any file will be at 51,200, but I would want to process such a file with a raw development application to smush (or schmush, if you prefer--that is a highly technical term for reduction) the noise (and not the image detail) in pleasing ways. Of course, back in the 1970s, we were generally restricted to ASA 400/DIN 27 film and 1/1000th of a second fastest shutter speed and a maximum aperture of f/1.2.
On available lenses, the E-M1 has the advantage with two major brands bringing lenses to market over a few years. FujiFilm is coming along with quite a few good focal lengths, while Olympus is making some interesting choices (the death of their Four-Thirds bodies gives way to HG-like lenses for micro Four-Thirds) nowadays and Panasonic is trying to use Canon's lenses as a guide. It's a bit difficult to tell the better lenses from Olympus, except for price and most recently, the "PRO" label. Panasonic's X label isn't exactly helpful, but that signals their best lenses, and FujiFilm is using XF to mark theirs. Considering third party lenses, FujiFilm has the advantage with electronically-enabled lenses, while Olympus has the advantage with lenses that have no more than a micro Four-Thirds mount. If Schneider and Tamron would actually produce the micro Four-Thirds lenses announced, there would be some interesting alternatives. Schneider, 2013 has come and gone and your 14mm f/2.0 lens doesn't even seem to be in the hands of testers.
Of course, handling will be the big deal for any camera body. As I've said too many times, SLRs from the 1970s were slippery. Mount a heavy lens and you'd better pay attention more than with a current body. The E-M1 and X-T1 have similar grips, and the E-M1 grip was sufficient for light, native lenses. Putting Four-Thirds lenses on the body made the grip uncomfortable for me. This isn't a problem for the X-T1, unless of course, you buy a third party adapter but then, that wasn't planned by the company, whereas the Four-Thirds lenses were meant to work with the E-M1, even though it still seems like an afterthought. You can buy a battery grip for each to help with balance and shooting time.
I found the electronic viewfinder of the E-M1 to be so good that I could give up an optical viewfinder. The viewfinder on the X-T1 is supposedly better, with less lag and a better refresh rate in lower light. The information displayed on the X-T1 in portrait orientation is usefully re-arranged.
If I were starting fresh, I'm not 100% sure what I'd pick but I suspect that it would be the X-T1.
Update 2014.02.17: I've been thinking how the Panasonic GH4 interrupts these thoughts. However, if still photography is my goal, these two will likely still be better choices. I viewed a video today by Guilio Sciorio, a Panasonic Lumix Luminary, and he commented that the GH4 is a much better shooter than the GH3. It's good that you can pull an 8 MP image out of a video file. I've also see Panasonic marketing materials saying that the image quality is better than many other bodies, but it didn't specify stills or video. The video quality is a given, but stills quality? I'm not so sure.
Update 2014.02.22: What Digital Camera gave the X-T1 a score of 93% and the E-M1, 92%. This is my go-to magazine, as I don't see advertising or personal preference influencing the outcome.
Some of the same things bother me, such as the rear display being out in the open, and only sliding or flipping, plus the battery is too small, though the E-M1 has fairly good battery life but the grip is uncomfortable (for me, especially with Four-Thirds lenses) because they're using a small battery and somehow they couldn't see to make it more like the E-5 or GH3. I thought both of these bodies needed two SD Card slots also. At the camera store the other day, they'd mentioned that the X-T1 bodies are trickling into their stores, and are already sold by the time they arrive. Obviously, the E-M1 has been available longer but it's being bought at a good pace, also, despite the size and price complaints from various micro Four-Thirds users.
Update 2014.03.01: It's March already? I spent a little time with an X-T1 yesterday. I didn't photograph anything, so I don't have photos to share. I wanted to compare the size and get a feel for how things worked in the confines of the store. It felt small, as the E-M1 feels small to me. The grip was smaller but better shaped. If they'd put a bigger battery in the grip, two of my doubts would have been handled at once. Given that I wouldn't be putting huge lenses on it, I don't think I'd have as much of a comfort issue as I would with the E-M1 and Four-Thirds lenses.
This blog entry is all about starting fresh, and I think either one is a good choice. The number of manual controls is over the top on the X-T1. I'm not sure if that is a good thing. I don't frequently change the ISO sensitivity setting, so I don't need a manual control just for that, just as it was in the film days, when they had it accessible but somewhat secondary to the shutter speed.
 |
| The 1970s had simplicity on their side |
 |
| Lift and Turn to set the film speed |
 |
| Manual controls for practically everything possible |
 |
| X-T1 and GH3 |
The build was solid, similar to the E-M1. It felt better than the Canon 70D or the Nikon D7100--its main rivals, although the grip (and battery inside the grip) was the advantage for the dSLRs.. Once the weather-sealed lenses are available, it should be a very potent package.
Update 2014.03.20: I've seen a lot of good reviews about the X-T1. However, a lot of those seem to be people enamoured of the sheer number of physical controls on the top plate, not necessarily the actual performance, which seems to be very much like the X-E2. The X-E2 is very good, mind, but it's a bit sluggish (and the X-T1 is similar) compared to the E-M1 or the GH3 or the D7100 or the 70D. FujiFilm has come a long way toward making their system desirable. For casual users, I think it should be number 1 because it gives you great images with a minimum of fuss and the film simulation modes give people more of an idea of what to expect than Standard, Natural, or Vivid would suggest. The top shutter speed of 1/4000th of a second seems a bit limiting, especially with the 56mm f/1.2 lens. Neutral Density filters come to mind, though.
That said, the E-M1 is very quick. For sports, it's easy to choose the E-M1, even over the D7100 or 70D. That 1/8000th of a second shutter speed is helpful in many situations, as I have found with the Olympus E-5. The E-M1 is not a body for the casual user. The E-M5 is a better choice for casual users and it is less expensive.
Update 2014.11.06: I'm thinking about the X-T1 again. There is a Rokinon (Samyang/Bower...) 8mm f/2.8 fisheye lens that is available for FujiFilm X-Mount cameras.
The 135 Format equivalent would be 12mm--plus this is an f/2.8 lens, not f/3.5 and that is somewhat more useful. Add to that FujiFilm's sensor handling low light a bit better than Olympus', there are possibilities that I could get some skate park photos in lower light, with higher image quality. It's not guaranteed but it's possible.
The only thing that worries me is that the X-T1 might not be responsive enough. That was always my worry. The E-M1 is extremely responsive, as are the GH3 and GH4. FujiFilm seems to save money by not putting strong processors in the camera bodies. For many people, this isn't a problem. Casual photographers won't have a problem with it but sports photography doesn't wait for you to futz with your camera. When I tried the X-T1, I had wished for a running event outside the store, so I could give it a good workout. Unfortunately, the lenses I want/need for sports still aren't available.
Rokinon seems to have several lenses available, and even though they're manually-operated lenses, they should be good for FujiFilm users. There are more available for micro Four-Thirds though they're not all of the same lenses.
I'm still considering what's best for me.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Nikon Df, more retro in a bigger but smaller package
While I'm not exactly surprised by Nikon's announcement, I'm pleased to see that they've put together a 1970s-style camera body.
When I was selling the Nikon F2, we had a Nikkormat body, which was their less expensive, smaller brand. It was easily usable without the crane and tripod. Compared to the Olympus OM-1N, it was still quite heavy.
When I first got a dSLR in 2004, I wondered why they couldn't do something in the same size as the 1970s bodies. It seemed ridiculous to have a smaller sensor (APS-C or Four-Thirds) in a body larger than 135 format. Then, I mounted a longer, bigger lens and realized how much more comfortable these dSLRs were. The grip kept them from being slippery, too. Using a 4x telephoto zoom, and relaxing and holding everything with only fingertips on the grip says a lot of progress has been made.
So, Nikon brought a camera to market that looks very much like the 1970s, adding a couple of LCDs and a lot of automatic features. The price is up there, but not outrageous for what you get. At roughly US$2750, you get their top of the line 135 format/FX sensor. (If you think higher pixel density leads to better image quality, you need to think again.) Combine that with the D610's auto focus unit, a single card slot, and all the dials you can handle, and you've got a great casual shooter than wipes Sony's A7/A7R duo right off the camera shop floor, except for size, of course.
No, it's not likely that the same people are going to be driven to Sony and Nikon bodies, or anything with the retro look. I suspect a lot of people in their 70s will buy the Nikon Df, if for nothing than nostalgia, as they probably have an old Nikon body in the closet.
Why do I damn the Df with the word "casual"? You'll see that the first time you mount the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens to it without a tripod handy. It's the same reason I call most of the micro Four-Thirds bodies casual--you'll need to take more care if you want to work handheld with an unbalanced pairing of body and lens. Thankfully, Fuji has been thoughtful with their X-series bodies and only provided an adapter for Leica M-mount lenses, which are small lenses. In the 1970s, it wasn't a huge problem because there weren't so many huge lenses, unless you were using Medium Format.
If you fit into that category where you take the time to take the shot, I suspect that you'll be richly rewarded by some very amazing image quality with the best lenses. If you dig the bottom of the barrel and come out with a 40 year old Sigma lens, you'll wonder why there was any fuss about the Nikon Df. Using high quality lenses with it will make you admire the D4 even more.
Thinking back a bit to the D610 announcement, I see where it makes more sense now that the update came about the same time as the Df, especially with the update to the Expeed 3 processor and faster burst rate.
Update 2013.11.11: Saturday, I was at a local camera store for a workshop, and I was discussing something later and I noticed a couple of the film bodies from the 1970s and 1980s, and they brought back a sense of nostalgia, having sold such equipment in my past. Unfortunately, most who spent US$500 aren't as likely to spend US$2750 for nostalgia, I expect.
Update 2013.11.24: Reading What Digital Camera's impressions made me smile when they said that the camera body was larger than expected, even though it's the smallest Nikon FX body. Nikon built huge camera bodies way back when. It was only after Olympus started to take business away that they responded with smaller bodies. The article was suggesting that the balance wasn't very good with zoom lenses. They should go back to the 1970s when none of the camera bodies had much of a grip at all. If you wanted stability, you bought a tripod.
Update 2014.12.18: I wonder if Nikon has sold more than a few thousand of these bodies. I don't see much about this body any longer. I suppose Nikon enthusiasts and professional photographers from the 1970s bought quite a few of them and that buying spree was over quickly. What value can you place on nostalgia?
When I was selling the Nikon F2, we had a Nikkormat body, which was their less expensive, smaller brand. It was easily usable without the crane and tripod. Compared to the Olympus OM-1N, it was still quite heavy.
When I first got a dSLR in 2004, I wondered why they couldn't do something in the same size as the 1970s bodies. It seemed ridiculous to have a smaller sensor (APS-C or Four-Thirds) in a body larger than 135 format. Then, I mounted a longer, bigger lens and realized how much more comfortable these dSLRs were. The grip kept them from being slippery, too. Using a 4x telephoto zoom, and relaxing and holding everything with only fingertips on the grip says a lot of progress has been made.
So, Nikon brought a camera to market that looks very much like the 1970s, adding a couple of LCDs and a lot of automatic features. The price is up there, but not outrageous for what you get. At roughly US$2750, you get their top of the line 135 format/FX sensor. (If you think higher pixel density leads to better image quality, you need to think again.) Combine that with the D610's auto focus unit, a single card slot, and all the dials you can handle, and you've got a great casual shooter than wipes Sony's A7/A7R duo right off the camera shop floor, except for size, of course.
No, it's not likely that the same people are going to be driven to Sony and Nikon bodies, or anything with the retro look. I suspect a lot of people in their 70s will buy the Nikon Df, if for nothing than nostalgia, as they probably have an old Nikon body in the closet.
Why do I damn the Df with the word "casual"? You'll see that the first time you mount the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens to it without a tripod handy. It's the same reason I call most of the micro Four-Thirds bodies casual--you'll need to take more care if you want to work handheld with an unbalanced pairing of body and lens. Thankfully, Fuji has been thoughtful with their X-series bodies and only provided an adapter for Leica M-mount lenses, which are small lenses. In the 1970s, it wasn't a huge problem because there weren't so many huge lenses, unless you were using Medium Format.
If you fit into that category where you take the time to take the shot, I suspect that you'll be richly rewarded by some very amazing image quality with the best lenses. If you dig the bottom of the barrel and come out with a 40 year old Sigma lens, you'll wonder why there was any fuss about the Nikon Df. Using high quality lenses with it will make you admire the D4 even more.
Thinking back a bit to the D610 announcement, I see where it makes more sense now that the update came about the same time as the Df, especially with the update to the Expeed 3 processor and faster burst rate.
Update 2013.11.11: Saturday, I was at a local camera store for a workshop, and I was discussing something later and I noticed a couple of the film bodies from the 1970s and 1980s, and they brought back a sense of nostalgia, having sold such equipment in my past. Unfortunately, most who spent US$500 aren't as likely to spend US$2750 for nostalgia, I expect.
Update 2013.11.24: Reading What Digital Camera's impressions made me smile when they said that the camera body was larger than expected, even though it's the smallest Nikon FX body. Nikon built huge camera bodies way back when. It was only after Olympus started to take business away that they responded with smaller bodies. The article was suggesting that the balance wasn't very good with zoom lenses. They should go back to the 1970s when none of the camera bodies had much of a grip at all. If you wanted stability, you bought a tripod.
Update 2014.12.18: I wonder if Nikon has sold more than a few thousand of these bodies. I don't see much about this body any longer. I suppose Nikon enthusiasts and professional photographers from the 1970s bought quite a few of them and that buying spree was over quickly. What value can you place on nostalgia?
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
New Sony a7 - a7R
I'm sorry Sony, but I can't stop laughing at the painful looks of the camera bodies you've mangled.
You took a very handsome, curved block that looked almost exactly like a Nikon 1 (not a good idea, considering what Nikon are telling Sakar/Polaroid with the lawsuit), plopped a viewfinder onto it, and riveted a grip onto it.
It looks home-made, like someone's $100 camera body mockup. Frankenstein's creature was possibly less ugly.
Now, technically, it sounds interesting, but they need to show how huge the lenses are, especially the long lenses, mirror-less or not, it's still 135 format. Trying to get a good day's work out of it is going to be heavy.
DPReview seemed incredibly supportive of Sony in their first look assessment. The controls are there but seem illogically placed, as if the outer form followed the inner form, as if the design came from an electronics company. Samsung and, to a lesser extent, Panasonic have been doing similar types of design work, but Panasonic finally got it right with their GH3, save the SD Card door and Display button.
Supposedly, the grip on the a7 and a7R is quite good, so it should be comfortable.
The lens selection looked a bit bizarre, and given their lack of lenses for their NEX line after these (3, 4, 5?) years, will they improve in their variety?
The features of the two bodies was interesting. Choose the less expensive body and get a lower resolution (logical) sensor with a anti-aliasing/low pass filter or pay quite a bit to get a higher resolution sensor without the filter. Of course, if you can afford the more expensive model, they're thinking that you already know how to handle moiré patterns.
Still, I can't see the more expensive model going up against the Nikon D800E or any medium format camera. I also couldn't see the D800E going up against medium format, although the resolution is plentiful. Have I thought about buying one? Definitely, and I've thought about the D800.
Are there people out there who chant "full frame full frame" as the universal panacea? Yes! Could this fix their desire? Possibly. However, I feel that those people will still have trouble getting the photos they want because they may never know their equipment, and could do much better with the equipment they have, until they've explored everything that a camera body can do.
Update 2013.11.05: Well, that didn't take long. Nikon's new Df matches 1970s style with 2013 specifications and even allows lenses from as far back as 1959. That's a lot of crossing time, and you don't even have to switch equipment brands. The main difference for people trying to decide is whether they want better image quality or higher image density, since the Df uses a 16 MP sensor from the D4. Of course, thinking about ISO 25,600 photos as clean as most ISO 1600 photos has appeal. If you happen to photograph concerts for a living, you have a new backup camera body in the Df or your company could afford a couple of them instead of one D4.
Update 2013.12.10: The a7/a7R duo have had mixed reviews. They have a lot of potential but they're products of checklist engineering. I think they'll be useful to the casual photographer. I somehow doubt that a professional would consider them, but a few professionals have considered micro Four-Thirds, so why not this pair and the Sony FE-mount? Any camera body currently available is good, and these have to be far about just good.
Update 2014.12.18: While I'm still not a fan of their electronics-oriented designs, Sony has gone further with these and produced a successor to the a7 and added the a7S with ISO sensitivity up to 409,600 and increased dynamic range. The sensor has 12 MP, which should provide good enlargements with lower noise than most, given the low pixel density.
The a7 II has 5 axis image stabilization, similar to what Olympus started with the OM-D E-M5. This should improve quite a few blurry photos.
The company has come a long way from buying the assets of poor Minolta.
Update 2014.04.08: I'm glad they've revised the body greatly with the A7 Mk II. It seems much better overall.
You took a very handsome, curved block that looked almost exactly like a Nikon 1 (not a good idea, considering what Nikon are telling Sakar/Polaroid with the lawsuit), plopped a viewfinder onto it, and riveted a grip onto it.
It looks home-made, like someone's $100 camera body mockup. Frankenstein's creature was possibly less ugly.
Now, technically, it sounds interesting, but they need to show how huge the lenses are, especially the long lenses, mirror-less or not, it's still 135 format. Trying to get a good day's work out of it is going to be heavy.
DPReview seemed incredibly supportive of Sony in their first look assessment. The controls are there but seem illogically placed, as if the outer form followed the inner form, as if the design came from an electronics company. Samsung and, to a lesser extent, Panasonic have been doing similar types of design work, but Panasonic finally got it right with their GH3, save the SD Card door and Display button.
Supposedly, the grip on the a7 and a7R is quite good, so it should be comfortable.
The lens selection looked a bit bizarre, and given their lack of lenses for their NEX line after these (3, 4, 5?) years, will they improve in their variety?
The features of the two bodies was interesting. Choose the less expensive body and get a lower resolution (logical) sensor with a anti-aliasing/low pass filter or pay quite a bit to get a higher resolution sensor without the filter. Of course, if you can afford the more expensive model, they're thinking that you already know how to handle moiré patterns.
Still, I can't see the more expensive model going up against the Nikon D800E or any medium format camera. I also couldn't see the D800E going up against medium format, although the resolution is plentiful. Have I thought about buying one? Definitely, and I've thought about the D800.
Are there people out there who chant "full frame full frame" as the universal panacea? Yes! Could this fix their desire? Possibly. However, I feel that those people will still have trouble getting the photos they want because they may never know their equipment, and could do much better with the equipment they have, until they've explored everything that a camera body can do.
Update 2013.11.05: Well, that didn't take long. Nikon's new Df matches 1970s style with 2013 specifications and even allows lenses from as far back as 1959. That's a lot of crossing time, and you don't even have to switch equipment brands. The main difference for people trying to decide is whether they want better image quality or higher image density, since the Df uses a 16 MP sensor from the D4. Of course, thinking about ISO 25,600 photos as clean as most ISO 1600 photos has appeal. If you happen to photograph concerts for a living, you have a new backup camera body in the Df or your company could afford a couple of them instead of one D4.
Update 2013.12.10: The a7/a7R duo have had mixed reviews. They have a lot of potential but they're products of checklist engineering. I think they'll be useful to the casual photographer. I somehow doubt that a professional would consider them, but a few professionals have considered micro Four-Thirds, so why not this pair and the Sony FE-mount? Any camera body currently available is good, and these have to be far about just good.
Update 2014.12.18: While I'm still not a fan of their electronics-oriented designs, Sony has gone further with these and produced a successor to the a7 and added the a7S with ISO sensitivity up to 409,600 and increased dynamic range. The sensor has 12 MP, which should provide good enlargements with lower noise than most, given the low pixel density.
The a7 II has 5 axis image stabilization, similar to what Olympus started with the OM-D E-M5. This should improve quite a few blurry photos.
The company has come a long way from buying the assets of poor Minolta.
Update 2014.04.08: I'm glad they've revised the body greatly with the A7 Mk II. It seems much better overall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)