Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

New Olympus flagship
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Official News and Announcements
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tony, let's be honest here, you were extremely rude and impolite. You could have said what you did in a much more polite and pleasant manner. It wasn't what you said, it was how you said it.

I did actually take note of what you said and acted upon it by backing out of this thread. You could have offered the same viewpoint in the form of friendly advice, but instead, you were hostile, and that is something you have done many times before.

So it's upto you how you behave, I am trying to do my best to contribute without upsetting anyone, but your hostility and negativity doesn't make it any easier. If you can't refrain from hostility, then I really can't do much other than ignore you and hope you calm dwn.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I can jump on it and apply I would like to ask you apply same than me, you can count on one hand how many times I said to anybody I have trouble with his opinion , yes did happen a few times, but more and more less I did learn how can I apply 100% opposite opinions.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
my posts speak for themselves and im happy to have them judged on their context, tone and merit. i have nothing more to say on the topic.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 1:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's the hostile tone, that's all, there's just no need to be so hostile. Smile


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 5:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
fermy wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
fermy wrote:
newer m4/3 cameras are as good as anything APS-C and FF.


Why do you say that? I just can't see the rationale behind that but maybe you know something I don't. Smile


The rationale is very simple: the output is very good and not lacking in any respect. Just compare what WolverineX and Nordentro are posting with what is posted from large sensor cameras.


I agree that the output is very good, but does it match a current APS-C or FF camera? I don't think so, especially with distant shots. I'd have to see some RAWs to be sure though. Certainly the older 12mp M4/3 sensors were noticeably less good than their contemporary larger rivals and I don't see any reason for that situation to have changed. I know Panasonic have made great strides with the M4/3 sensors, but so have the other makers with their sensors too. I just don't see how the disadvantages of a smaller sensor can be overcome if the larger sensors have equally good technology; the smaller sensor is always going to have inferior dynamic range, fine detail and noise if the larger sensor has equally good technology.

If you look at dxomark results, the OM-D doesn't quite equal the performance of the one year older NEX-7, which is quite impressive imho, that the smaller sensor can nearly reach the level of the larger Sony. However, if you compare the OM-D to a bang upto date APS-C sensor like the Nikon D7100, it loses by a fair margin. Although the Nikon is 300 USD more expensive, and 250g heavier, so the Oly has it's advantages.

I'm keeping a keen eye on the latest developments in sensors because it's reaching the time where I feel like upgrading from my NEX-3, but for me to do so, I have to get a sizeable increase in IQ over the old 14.2mp sensor in my NEX and I haven't seen anything that offers enough of an advantage at a price point I could afford yet.


Right on Ian ,i dont understand what this people are arguing, if sony is supplying sensor for OM-1 then is it perceiveable that they are not improving their own APS-C or FF sensor tech?? Only a foollish person could argue on such logic! They supplied Sensor to Nikon D800and other Nikon dslrs
http://petapixel.com/2012/10/24/a-look-at-the-use-of-sony-cmos-sensors-in-nikon-dslrs/
for long now,yeah the ergonomics of the NEX may be a problem but i cant agree that 4/3rd sensor is better than APS-C from sony or other manufacturer, the argument is plain and simple stupid. The 4/3 sensor can at best be at par with current APS-C but never better!!! I think most people are comparing jpeg.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's probably just another Olympus fraud. APS is not a professional format. Full stop.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
philslizzy wrote:
It's probably just another Olympus fraud. APS is not a professional format. Full stop.
Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
raay04 wrote:


Right on Ian ,i dont understand what this people are arguing, if sony is supplying sensor for OM-1 then is it perceiveable that they are not improving their own APS-C or FF sensor tech?? Only a foollish person could argue on such logic!


If you don't understand something, that does not mean that the people who understand are fools, doesn't it? People in this thread who said that they prefer m4/3 output are not arguing btw, they recount their direct experience with both systems. That does not mean that this experience would be the same for everyone, btw.

There is no doubt that DR and noise on NEX sensor will be slightly better than on m4/3 sensors. However, with new generation m4/3 sensor those differences are so slight that they are simply no longer relevant in practice. It's obvious from the output posted, but objective measurements such as DxO say just as much.

Meanwhile m4/3 enjoys a number of advantages over NEX, such as better native glass, and (in case of Olympus) IBIS and superior image processing resulting in better colors, for example. Hope this explains.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="fermy"]
raay04 wrote:




There is no doubt that DR and noise on NEX sensor will be slightly better than on m4/3 sensors. However, with new generation m4/3 sensor those differences are so slight that they are simply no longer relevant in practice. It's obvious from the output posted, but objective measurements such as DxO say just as much.



So you accept what I say but yet again you say 4/3 is better ,so according to you only 4/3 is using new gen sensors and all others are using 5 year old tech!! yeah you said it right i really dont know anything!!!!


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
raay04 wrote:
fermy wrote:




There is no doubt that DR and noise on NEX sensor will be slightly better than on m4/3 sensors. However, with new generation m4/3 sensor those differences are so slight that they are simply no longer relevant in practice. It's obvious from the output posted, but objective measurements such as DxO say just as much.



So you accept what I say but yet again you say 4/3 is better ,so according to you only 4/3 is using new gen sensors and all others are using 5 year old tech!! yeah you said it right i really dont know anything!!!!


I have no idea what you know/don't know, but you sure as heck don't read what others post.

Last edited by fermy on Sat Sep 14, 2013 2:11 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Fermy did make pretty accurate explanation , think about it, read again, I think that is very well cover reality and calm down please!


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks, Attila.

Once again. The gap between m4/3 and APSC has shrunk almost to nothing. Old generation m4/3 were using 2008 sensor tech, so the difference in noise and DR between m4/3 and NEX, which was using 2011 technology was obvious. Now they are both using modern technology of 2013, so the difference is miniscule. Is it clear now?


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
((deleted my comments, not worth the hassle))

Last edited by kds315* on Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:25 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 2:58 pm    Post subject: Re: New Olympus flagship Reply with quote
yinyangbt wrote:
http://special.olympus.eu/s/coming-soon/?olycmp=omdglt
Seems a professional grade build quality. For the 4/3 shooters .

I quote myself from the original post : professional grade build quality !!!! ,....not professional camera.
Maybe this helps a little to calm down . People , there are a lot of things much more important than photography and cameras in life , so , don't argue on this .
It's a matter of taste , no need and useless to dispute over that.
And , after all , these are just tools , and it depends how a camera meets the needs and priorities of each other ,and the style of photography .As it shows ,there is a big amount of subjectivity in the interaction of the man and the camera and the results of this activity.
What is important and beautiful for me ,might not be for someone else.Don't look for the Absolute here , I doubt you'll find it.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
Thanks, Attila.

Once again. The gap between m4/3 and APSC has shrunk almost to nothing. Old generation m4/3 were using 2008 sensor tech, so the difference in noise and DR between m4/3 and NEX, which was using 2011 technology was obvious. Now they are both using modern technology of 2013, so the difference is miniscule. Is it clear now?


I think that's what I was trying to say earlier, that the new 16mp M4/3 sensor has closed the gap. Certainly, the old 12mp M4/3 was less good but the new 16mp one is very close in performance, which is impressive.

Why this has to be such a contentious topic is beyond me, if I'd realised discussing it would cause an argument, I wouldn't have said anything.

I agree with fermy, the good native glass and 5-axis IBIS are major plus points for the M4/3 platform. As I said earlier, all the modern cameras are more than good enough. Some are more suitable for certain types of work than others though.

One feature the latest Oly M4/3 cameras have that I wish Sony would implement is the impressive AEB capabilities, which are of interest to me due to my interest in HDR shooting.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Today dprew update : http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympus-om-d-e-m1/7


http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/09/12/olympus-e-m1-first-shots-posted


PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
The gap between m4/3 and APSC has shrunk almost to nothing.

The Nikon D5200 is the highest scoring APS-C camera examined by DxOMark. It's just one point ahead of the Nikon D7100. Ian said that the OM-D loses to the D7100 by a fair margin.

Let's look at the figures ...

DxOMark Overall score : D5200/OM-D EM-5 84/71
DxOMark Dynamic Range : D5200/OM-D EM-5 13.9/12.3 Ev
DxOMark Low Light ISO : D5200/OM-D EM-5 1284/826

DR difference about 1.5 stops. Low light ISO difference nearly 2/3 of a stop.

DxOMark is not everything - but you did quote it in an earlier post. If these differences don't matter that's fine. But some of us might describe them as more than almost...nothing.

BTW this is not an attempt to "bash" or otherwise criticise the m4/3 format or its users. As an APS-C user I have long suffered at the hands of some FF users (not necessarily on this forum).


PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 5:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
sichko wrote:
fermy wrote:
The gap between m4/3 and APSC has shrunk almost to nothing.

The Nikon D5200 is the highest scoring APS-C camera examined by DxOMark. It's just one point ahead of the Nikon D7100. Ian said that the OM-D loses to the D7100 by a fair margin.

Let's look at the figures ...

DxOMark Overall score : D5200/OM-D EM-5 84/71
DxOMark Dynamic Range : D5200/OM-D EM-5 13.9/12.3 Ev
DxOMark Low Light ISO : D5200/OM-D EM-5 1284/826

DR difference about 1.5 stops. Low light ISO difference nearly 2/3 of a stop.

DxOMark is not everything - but you did quote it in an earlier post. If these differences don't matter that's fine. But some of us might describe them as more than almost...nothing.

BTW this is not an attempt to "bash" or otherwise criticise the m4/3 format or its users. As an APS-C user I have long suffered at the hands of some FF users (not necessarily on this forum).
These values ABSOLUTELY mean nothing to my eyes. It's not like I have spent my money on m4/3 lenses and now I am trying to say that it's better. I have spent more on NEX system and I am super-duper frustrated with it's functions and features. That's why I decided to try the 4/3 (OLY) and found it amazingly better than any APS-C out there (the ones at least I've used). PERIOD. Not to mention the amazing shots by 4/3 shooters of this forum. Now I could care less what DXOmark or anyone else said or I am probably blind. That being said, I'd never spend money on APS-C system. Either on FF or M4/3 Smile


PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 5:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
mzzyhmd wrote:
These values ABSOLUTELY mean nothing to my eyes. It's not like I have spent my money on m4/3 lenses and now I am trying to say that it's better. I have spent more on NEX system and I am super-duper frustrated with it's functions and features. That's why I decided to try the 4/3 (OLY) and found it amazingly better than any APS-C out there (the ones at least I've used). PERIOD. Not to mention the amazing shots by 4/3 shooters of this forum. Now I could care less what DXOmark or anyone else said or I am probably blind. That being said, I'd never spend money on APS-C system. Either on FF or M4/3 Smile


They could be nothing for you, but actually it's the only form of objective data we can talk about, apart from those it's all "I like this better/ I like that better".
IMHO it's quite pointless comparing all aps-c cameras to all m4/3 cameras: they have nothing in common except sensor size.
You weren't happy with your nex's features, and now you are with your m4/3, that's great: you found a camera you enjoy using, that's what it's all about.
But this doesn't mean DxO mark ratings are useless: a camera with higher score isn't necessary a better overall camera, there are many factors tgat dxomark doesn't evaluate, but the score has a precise and measurable meaning.
As for pics on this forum, I saw some quite pretty ones shot with aps-c sensor cameras too.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Do you think that focus-confirmation would still make sense on a focus-peaking capable camera? Or focus-peaking just simply obsoleted focus-confirmation? (In theory, focus-confirmation should be possible with with the E-M1 since it supports PDAF.)

Those of you who had experience with both focus-confirmation and focus-peaking, would you mind sharing your experiences and opinion on one vs the other?

Thanx


PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
bogolisk wrote:
Do you think that focus-confirmation would still make sense on a focus-peaking capable camera? Or focus-peaking just simply obsoleted focus-confirmation? (In theory, focus-confirmation should be possible with with the E-M1 since it supports PDAF.)

Those of you who had experience with both focus-confirmation and focus-peaking, would you mind sharing your experiences and opinion on one vs the other?

Thanx


As some have already wrote in other threads on this forum, there are different focus peaking systems: some work better than others.
I guess it's the same for focus confirm.
In my experience - focus confirm on Sony a55 with chipped m42 adapters and focus peaking on nex5 - they are both not accurate enough to trust them blindly. They're useful to get near quickly, but not much more. If I need critical accuracy I alway use focus magnification (which makes things slower).
As for focus confirm vs focus peaking, the advantages of the latter are evident, IMHO: no need to pre-select the area or to recompose after focussing.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Official News and Announcements
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3