Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Latest Canon rumors
#21
The motors are different. While mirrorless focus units are driven directly, DSLR lenses use rotating motors (in general) and turn the movement to linear by using a thread. Which is very good to focus manually without wasting battery power, while the focus by wire most of the times feel slightly ackward.

 

With mirrorless the focus unit is driven directly, soemtimes up to htree drives are involved to speed up heavy glass and slow it down again, DSLR lenses use a kind of gearbox and move indirectly.

 

More info at lensrentals

#22
The difference in AF is in the communication and algorithms used, the steps the lens takes. How the AF is implemented motor/gear wide in the lens is not that important. 

 

Canon DSLRs like the 70/80D can focus pretty well with USM lenses in live view, and they can focus just fine with STM lenses in PD AF. 

 

The AF implementation in a lens does not have a big impact on price.

#23
The mirrorless I like is Olympus MFT because at least it has some advantages.  It produces very sharp photos and has a very deep depth of field.  It doesn't perform tremendously in low light but the 2x crop factor makes for some decent telephoto capability.  The sensor size is 16MP, and I'm not sure if it will get any bigger.

 

My point is, at least it can some things better than a DSLR.  It makes a great travel compact travel camera.  I sort of empathize with Canikon.  If I were to jump in (I don't have a mirrorless) It would have to be smaller and useful.  I don't think being exactly like a DSLR without a mirror is that compelling.  I'd be more tempted to add an electronic viewer to a DSLR and expand it's live view capability, which has sort of already been done. 

 

Note:  I don't own any mirrorless cameras so if don't talk out of experience.  But my premise is I would rather have a smaller format and smaller package if I was going to get a new camera system.  Having MFT, and Canon APS-C and Canon FF would be the best of three worlds.  But if the rest of the world wants to buy mirrors cameras, I'm sure they must have something going for them.

#24
Quote:The mirrorless I like is Olympus MFT because at least it has some advantages.  It produces very sharp photos and has a very deep depth of field.  It doesn't perform tremendously in low light but the 2x crop factor makes for some decent telephoto capability.  The sensor size is 16MP, and I'm not sure if it will get any bigger.

 

My point is, at least it can some things better than a DSLR.  It makes a great travel compact travel camera.  I sort of empathize with Canikon.  If I were to jump in (I don't have a mirrorless) It would have to be smaller and useful.  I don't think being exactly like a DSLR without a mirror is that compelling.  I'd be more tempted to add an electronic viewer to a DSLR and expand it's live view capability, which has sort of already been done. 

 

Note:  I don't own any mirrorless cameras so if don't talk out of experience.  But my premise is I would rather have a smaller format and smaller package if I was going to get a new camera system.  Having MFT, and Canon APS-C and Canon FF would be the best of three worlds.  But if the rest of the world wants to buy mirrors cameras, I'm sure they must have something going for them.
MFT does NOT have  a more deep DOF than FF and APS-C. You have the possibility to have a more shallow DOF with FF, but when closing down to the same aperture (equivalent f-stop), you get the same "deep" DOF on all formats.

 

MFT does have a size advantage of you go for smaller aperture lenses, and it does have a tele advantage.
#25
Quote:MFT does NOT have  a more deep DOF than FF and APS-C. You have the possibility to have a more shallow DOF with FF, but when closing down to the same aperture (equivalent f-stop), you get the same "deep" DOF on all formats.

 

MFT does have a size advantage of you go for smaller aperture lenses, and it does have a tele advantage.
 

What I'm trying to get at is that different formats have different strengths.   With a 2x crop factor you will use a 25mm lens to get the same FOV you would have with a 50mm on a FF.   With the 25mm lens you will have a deeper depth of field.  A lot of times in nature photography you want a deep depth of field.  I just got finished looking at a photo of a beautiful, huge, ornate Hungarian church.  The lens was wide enough that everything was sharp!


It may not seem like an important difference, but I have reviewed a lot of nature photos taken with the newest Olympus gear, and they look very good to me.  Also having 5-stop anti-shake built in to the camera seems like it would make much easier shooting with all lenses.  There are a couple gimmicky things too.  I wouldn't take notice, but they seem like exceptionally good gimmicks.  One is in camera focus stacking.  I'm sure you are familiar with software for focus stacking, and the excruciating process of taking photos at different settings and then trying to make a focused result via post processing.  I sort of realize I am in the wrong church to preach deep depth of field, but I love the effect!  I just don't like the work involved.  Okay, so that is one.  The other is that the sensor shift of the 16 MP sensor is able to combine a mosaic of sensor shift views to yield a 40 MP result.  Gimmicks, or really cool features?  Certainly part gimmick because they are limited in applicability.  However...I'd like to play with them!


I guess the large sensor mirrorless appeal is to street photography type stuff?
#26
Arthur, I bought omd-10 back in March and I am really happy with it. Before I had the pen - 5, but was not impressed... sold it several months later.  Last summer I figured out that cell phone camera is not good enough for me so I looked for something more compact than D800. The good thing about MTF is the abundance of lenses (new and used) and cameras too. I shopped used. For trips that photography is not your main objective MFT is the answer - at least for me. I weighted many other options, but the $ and weight were a lot more. Not to mention that Oly did a excellent job on omd-10, it is a very practical little camera.

 

Lately everyone one is upset with the mirror box, it seems, but removing the mirror does not solve the weight issue. Big sensor cameras (Sony) look compact, but well designed lenses are quite big and pricey.

#27
Arthur, I think the point Brigtcolours was making was that with the larger format you can stop down 2 stops to match the dof of mft (and increase iso by 2 stops to match exposure and noise).

 

Of course mft has a huge size and weight advantage, especially if you want full frame lenses that are sharp wide open towards the edge of the frame. The 40Mpix mode look interesting, certainly the example shots online look great. I'm intrigued how it would work with long exposures (a few seconds to blur water for example).

#28
Thanks Boris!  Another happy MFT customer.  I know this might be the wrong forum to discus them, but the question of why hasn't Canon or Nikon jumped into the mirrorless fray, and I wonder if it is because I'm not sure how much sense larger format mirrorless camera make.  Why simply complicate a system that works, and make it three times as expensive in the process?  MFT on the other hand does what I would have expected.  They have made a smaller, less expensive, portable system with very good IQ.

 

I believe the E-M10 is the camera that my friend working for the state parks has.  He really loves it...and then some!  I think the camera I was thinking of was the  E-M10 II.  But it's hard for me to keep non-Canon camera models straight!  The three people I know who have MFT have one thing in common.  Enthusiasm!  Two are very experienced photographers.  And one is new to photography but is loving his Panasonic Lumix MFT.

 

I do get the Camera models confused.  I have to look them up to see what features they each have.  I find if I stray far from Canon, following the features of different camera models in a companies line up becomes complicated.  For example reading the following:

<p class=""> 

<p class="">"The OM-D E-M10 II is the follow-up to the E-M10, which was introduced in January 2014. To keep the E-M10's price down, Olympus had to cut out several of the most notable OM-D features, including 5-axis image stabilization and weather-sealing. That said, it also had some features not yet found on the more expensive OM-Ds, like a new image processor, higher resolution LCD, and Wi-Fi."


I have noticed Pentax has done the same in the past.  Introduced a cheaper economy version DSLR that actually has a more advanced image processor, and so on, but lacked the weather sealing and the high quality pentaprism viewer. 


<p class=""> 

<p class="">Gah!  This is barbaric!  You don't put better features in economy models than your flagship has!

<p class=""> 

<p class="">But alas! Canon has gone the route too!  It used to be you just looked at the ###D to save some dollars, the ##D if you wanted a few more features, and #D if you wanted the best. 


But again, it is the photos and size that make MFT important.  A neighbor recently to a 3 month safari starting in South Africa and moving northward for 3 months.  He has a Lumix variant of the MFT theme.  I would have wanted the very best camera money could buy, but he bought a Lumix kit with two lenses, and bought a third long telephoto to round it out.  He brought back 8,000 beautiful shots!  Doesn't sound like a lot for three months, but all the photos are good, so I guess he tossed the bad ones.  I can emphasize enough that this is a totally beginner to photography.  When he showed me the camera he didn't even know it was Micro Four Thirds!  I pointed out the


<p class="">I I I I

<p class=""> I I I      emblem to him.

<p class=""> 

<p class="">He said he began his search with certain requirements.  Small size, few lenses, good telephoto, and good image quality.  All I can say is I can argue with the results.  "Hi spec nerds" can talk about their superior cameras, but the proof in in the photos. 

<p class=""> 

<p class="">I only wish I could go to Africa for a mere moth!  But I have to give him credit.  He put together a good, small, inexpensive kit and worked it like a pro!  (Like I would have, he never let his camera out of his sight).

 
#29
Using FF wide-angles on a MFT or APS-C mirrorless camera is in my experience the worst thing to do:

 
  • You lose the weight and size advantage immediately.
  • You have to deal with an adapter. Except of metabones speedbooster, none will improve IQ. The speedbooster is pricey and sometimes close to the cost of as dedicated WW-mirrorless lens
  • IQ is worse than with dedicated mirrorless lenses because FF wide-angles need to be retrofocus types because of the mirrorbox.
#30
Quote:MFT does have a size advantage of you go for smaller aperture lenses, and it does have a tele advantage.
I don't think mft has a tele advantage. The pixel density of 24MPix APS-C is pretty much the same as 16Mpix mft and the 52MPix 5ds isn't far off. Of course you have to carry extra glass to cover the larger sensor...
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)