|
plotskee posted:Woops wrong thread for buying and selling. Distilled pros/cons from years of window shopping (full disclose, I am a Panasonic owner): Panasonic: stabilized lenses, no in body stabilization. Easy user interface. Shoots good video. Olympus: no stabilized lenses, in body stabilization. UI designed by engineers, and not user interface engineers. Get Olympus if you want to get into adapted glass and benefit from stabilization, and aren't bothered by the UI. Panasonic glass will forever be an "am I paying extra for redundant lens stabilization?" question when shopping for lenses. Get Panasonic if you like ease of use/settings, aren't too bothered by stabilization and think one day you might like to try out shooting video, even though you probably won't. You can use whatever glass, but it won't be stabilized. If you desire stabilization, say on a long telephoto, you're pretty much limited to Panasonic glass.
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
It might be Stockholm syndrome at this point as I've owned olympus bodies for a few years now, but I don't really get why their menu systems get so clowned... the odd setting here or there is awkwardly worded but you can usually figure it out pretty quickly. I definitely appreciate there not being any god drat animated transitions between menu screens which i remember seeing once on a panasonic body a while ago. In any case, it's definitely possible to get used to them, at least.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
Twenty-Seven posted:It might be Stockholm syndrome at this point as I've owned olympus bodies for a few years now, but I don't really get why their menu systems get so clowned... the odd setting here or there is awkwardly worded but you can usually figure it out pretty quickly. I definitely appreciate there not being any god drat animated transitions between menu screens which i remember seeing once on a panasonic body a while ago. I'm probably the same with Panasonic. At this point dealing with them is practically muscle memory, so I don't expect to understand anything just mucking with an Olympus body in a store. Just basically everyone who review cameras on the Internet and has reviewed both brands makes a point of mentioning it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
Thanks Linedance. Good distillation. I don't care about video or UI and cheaper, (lighter?) lenses sounds good to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
Calling Mr. Despair to post his Olympus sitting in a snowbank and DJExile's all covered in mud and ashes and god knows what else. I'm no video guy but the lower tier pannys like the GF series' video seems fine but really nothing special, I'd imagine you'd start to see the difference with the GH series.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Linedance posted:I'm probably the same with Panasonic. At this point dealing with them is practically muscle memory, so I don't expect to understand anything just mucking with an Olympus body in a store. Just basically everyone who review cameras on the Internet and has reviewed both brands makes a point of mentioning it. I've had a Canon DSLR since 2003 , and when I bought my X100T last year Fuji's menu system seemed like it was ancient greek. You def get used to that kind of thing for sure. Almost a year later and I still think the Fuji's menus suck, but now that's mostly because I'm always viewing it through the EVF because I don't feel like mashing the display mode button a bunch of times just to use the menu. (gently caress you very much to whoever at Fuji made that design choice)
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
Geektox posted:Calling Mr. Despair to post his Olympus sitting in a snowbank and DJExile's all covered in mud and ashes and god knows what else. Oh yeah, totally forgot; Olympus does weather resistance, which is nice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Oh yeah, totally forgot; Olympus does weather resistance, which is nice. For a 2-3 year old camera, I'd look at a Panasonic GX7 or Olympus EM10. Both were only just recently replaced with newer designs and aren't really much of a step back from their replacements. Ultimate bargain right now though is probably the Panasonic GX1 at around $130 for the body.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:I've had a Canon DSLR since 2003 , and when I bought my X100T last year Fuji's menu system seemed like it was ancient greek. You def get used to that kind of thing for sure. Heck, the first time I put down my Canon and picked up a Nikon it was 'what the hell is all this poo poo?' I felt like a pensioner being given an iphone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
TheGoatTrick posted:Panasonic's higher end stuff is weather sealed also. The EM10 and GX7 have only micro 4/3 sensor systems though, will you get comparable performance to a APS-C sensor model?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 10:19
|
|
|
I think the guy they're replying to was specifically asking for a m4/3 recommendation. But in practice for the majority of amateur of photographers you're not going to notice a difference. There are certain advantages of a high crop factor too, for wildlife and sports for example.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 11:41
|
|
|
Geektox posted:There are certain advantages of a high crop factor too, for wildlife and sports for example. More crop is not more zoom. It's just more cropping. Taking the same zoom level and only taking a chunk from the middle. Is m4/3rd different? Is he talking about other advantages I don't know about? Am I wrong? It gets said so much I'm doubting myself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 12:03
|
|
|
What a smaller sensor doesnt give you is smaller dof. So while on m4/3 a 25mm f1.8 will give the same fov and exposure (photons per sq.cm) as a 50mm f1.8, it will have double the depth of field.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 13:46
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:I've had a Canon DSLR since 2003 , and when I bought my X100T last year Fuji's menu system seemed like it was ancient greek. You def get used to that kind of thing for sure. Eh? My X-E1 only requires one button press to get into the menu regardless of if I have it up to my eye or not. I keep mine in eye-sensor mode so it switches between the EVF and the rear screen when I move it to/from my face. What're you doing that requires more than one press to get into the menu?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:Eh? My X-E1 only requires one button press to get into the menu regardless of if I have it up to my eye or not. I keep mine in eye-sensor mode so it switches between the EVF and the rear screen when I move it to/from my face. What're you doing that requires more than one press to get into the menu? Not keeping it in eye sensor mode, because I don't shoot with the screen and don't want it wasting battery by turning it on when I take the camera away from my face. I keep it in VF+Sensor only, so that the VF turns on when I put it to my face, and off when I take it away. So if I want to use the menu not in the EVF, I have to switch the view mode, then when I'm done change it back to my "don't drain the whole battery in an hour" mode. The main issue I have with the design, is that playback does not follow the rule for the rest of the camera - it sensibly is auto switching between EVF & Back screen regardless of the setting you have it on for shooting. IMO the menus should be exactly the same way - regardless of my shooting setting, the menu should autoswitch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:What a smaller sensor doesnt give you is smaller dof. So while on m4/3 a 25mm f1.8 will give the same fov and exposure (photons per sq.cm) as a 50mm f1.8, it will have double the depth of field. I guess it depends on one's definition of zoom is where my misunderstanding came from. I'm thinking in "optical zoom" terms. Not "digital zoom", which is pretty much exactly what a crop sensor does do for you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
LiquidRain posted:Can someone explain this? I was about to go on a mini rant about how "equivalent zoom" and "equivalent mm" is not the same as "equivalent field of view", and to my understanding crop sensors get you the latter. You are not wrong. But there's also some truth to what the poster you are replying to was saying. The reason it gets confusing is because most APS-C and m43 sensors have a higher pixel density than full frame sensors. Thus, even though it is a "crop" there is still a large amount of detail. Lets say you're comparing two photos shot with two different 24 megapixel sensors, one "full frame" and one APS-C, and used the same 100mm lens on both. The APS-C sensor will provide an equivalent field of view of 150mm on a full frame camera. But if you were to take the 24 megapixel full frame camera and tried to crop an image shot with the 100mm lens to a 150mm field of view, it's not going to have the same amount of detail as the APS-C shot. However, this is not due to an inherent advantage of crop sensors, it's just because this particular APS-C sensor has more pixels in the part of the image being framed in this example. If the full frame sensor had an equivalent amount of pixels in section of the sensor that equates to a 150mm field of view, the APS-C sensor would not have any sort of advantage in terms of detail provided.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
m4/3 gets you 16 mp sensors which is a pretty good amount of detail for amateur stuff. The 2x crop gets you larger DoF, which has its advantages, and it's also really cheap to get into super-fast primes for when you need a shallower DoF.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Am I wrong in thinking the term 'crop' in reference to sensor size is being taken too literally? Isn't a full frame sensor also a 'crop' sensor when compared to medium format or large format? Doesn't lens design need to be taken into account? A 25mm m4/3 lens' image circle doesn't cover a full frame sensor, so it doesn't seem like it's as simple as saying a 25mm m4/3 picture is equivalent to cropping down a 25mm full frame picture to a 50mm FOV. Lenses have resolution too, and in the later case the final image is being made with a much smaller percentage of the image the lens is designed to produce. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you guys are comparing apples and oranges here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Also, and this doesn't really apply for m43 until some pro long telephoto get released, that field of view/crop factor/equivalent zoom, whatever you want to call it, is a big advantage when framing small and distant subjects. At the same distance from the subject, you will have a better idea of what exactly you are focusing on, and can better frame it with the narrower field of view, rather than have a whole lot of empty space and having to wait to get home and crop the photo in post only to find the camera focused on a bird's foot instead of its eye. You still have to do this to an extent on a crop body, but you're already at a 1.5 or 1.6x advantage. Coming back to m43, it also has a huge advantage for your wallet because no matter how big and expensive Olympus' 300mm f4 prime is going to be, it will be tiny and cost peanuts compared to a 600mm f4 prime for full frame.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:What a smaller sensor doesnt give you is smaller dof. So while on m4/3 a 25mm f1.8 will give the same fov and exposure (photons per sq.cm) as a 50mm f1.8, it will have double the depth of field. It's great for all the food photos 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
This was what I was getting at. The way I've always understood it was that even though you're not gaining any zoom technically, you're getting more megapickles in the smaller "cropped out" area, which also allows you to further crop down if need be and still have a usable picture.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Splinter posted:Am I wrong in thinking the term 'crop' in reference to sensor size is being taken too literally? Isn't a full frame sensor also a 'crop' sensor when compared to medium format or large format? Doesn't lens design need to be taken into account? A 25mm m4/3 lens' image circle doesn't cover a full frame sensor, so it doesn't seem like it's as simple as saying a 25mm m4/3 picture is equivalent to cropping down a 25mm full frame picture to a 50mm FOV. Lenses have resolution too, and in the later case the final image is being made with a much smaller percentage of the image the lens is designed to produce. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you guys are comparing apples and oranges here. Vast majority of still photography terms are very archaic. Ideally we should use diagonal distance to describe a sensor size, and field of view angle to describe the lens. But we got stuck with terms Leica used 10 million years ago designed for different purpose. Also, I wish there is a simple number to describe aperture instead of the f1/xxx number. If you have rating system that use higher numberic number to represent exponantially larger available light for aperture and shutter time, just like the earth quake rating system, you can simply add up the aperture number and shutter number and get the exposure value.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
So hypothetically let's say some total loving idiot was trying to catch pictures of ocean surf on the rocks with a standard Sony zoom lens (a 55-210) with an a6000 and got light spray all over everything. After cursing a bit and wiping everything off and swapping lenses a bit without much problem, going back and forth and generally using the zoom lens fine, he finds that later in the day the autofocus takes forever and a half to settle. Is this a standard "you got saltwater in a crack, now you're hosed" situation or a "it's dusk, the 55-210 doesn't focus well on the horizon/clouds/the moon anyway, don't worry about it" situation? The other lens (the 10-18 wide) works great still, I don't think it's the body if there is a problem. Hypothetically.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
light up a place and try to autofocus on something with high contrast? if it's still slow, then yes, the salt has hosed up something
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
It does close (within 20 feet) fine, real snappy, even with very dim low contrast light. It was more of a problem with "infinity" focus on stuff like a couple miles out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
probably just low light then distance haze can also confuse contrast autofocus
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
Alright, thanks. For reference, there anything you can do to fix saltwater damage on these lenses? Can (very small amounts of) unsalted water ever make it better?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
The proper answer is: "time to upgrade an an A7RII".
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
zachol posted:It does close (within 20 feet) fine, real snappy, even with very dim low contrast light. It was more of a problem with "infinity" focus on stuff like a couple miles out. Sound like your lens got salt in place that prevent the lens elements move to the infinite position. Condolences.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
Hmm. What a convenient excuse to get a better telephoto.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
How much better is the A7II over the normal A7? Worth the extra 600 bucks? If it matters, I have shaky hands and appreciate the image stabilization that the the II has. I'm about to dump all my Pentax stuff and jump over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Other than IBIS, it has the better grip, full magnesium body and an improved filter stack on the sensor (the one in the original A7 caused internal reflections under certain conditions like bright point light sources in the dark). For you to decide whether that's worth 600 bux.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
The only big issue the a7 has is it chews up batteries, even with a grip, and apparently cannot charge with a grip attached, so I am going to have to buy the official Sony external charger and 4 new batteries , or save up and buy the fancy ultimate docking station thing I saw for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
the only thing keeping me on m43 and not switching to a7 is the lens sizes. Where a fast prime is the same weight/size as a super-telephoto. So i'm just here waiting for better sensor technology... ahh physics 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
MeruFM posted:the only thing keeping me on m43 and not switching to a7 is the lens sizes. Where a fast prime is the same weight/size as a super-telephoto. So i'm just here waiting for better sensor technology... haha yeah, i was feeling some similar full frame lust until i got one look at that 35mm 1.4 zeiss  
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Twenty-Seven posted:haha yeah, i was feeling some similar full frame lust until i got one look at that 35mm 1.4 zeiss Man you all are that tiny? Most Micro four thirds systems once I picked them up were... Almost unusable because they had really small parts, I mean the a7 without a grip for me is just terminally awkward. Also, the adaptor for the Minolta lenses turned out well, I have some photos from an airshow I will upload after working them in Lightroom later today. Question for all, which is better, an constant 4.5 f stop for a telephoto or should I save up for the Fe mount 4, because adapting the f2.8 still means it's a 3.2 if I accounted for the 1/3 loss of light for the LE-EA4
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Twenty-Seven posted:haha yeah, i was feeling some similar full frame lust until i got one look at that 35mm 1.4 zeiss  I dunno, the 55/1.8 is pretty reasonably-sized (hand for reference) and a drat good lens besides..
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Twenty-Seven posted:haha yeah, i was feeling some similar full frame lust until i got one look at that 35mm 1.4 zeiss
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
MeruFM posted:the only thing keeping me on m43 and not switching to a7 is the lens sizes. Where a fast prime is the same weight/size as a super-telephoto. So i'm just here waiting for better sensor technology... That's why I think Canon 6D is a better deal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 23:53
|
|