The Mirrorless Thread: Son(y), I Am Disappoint.

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > The Mirrorless Thread: Son(y), I Am Disappoint.

«‹›4 »

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

Casull posted:

Of course, the problem is that given the cost, I might as well get an X100...which I wouldn't mind, but I'm already having a hard-enough time saving money since I just bought my 60D, and the X100 is still a pain in the rear end to find.

The Olympus E-PL1 is only 400 dollars on Amazon now. The E-PL2 is 150 dollars more, and I don't really think it's worth the price increase. The improvements are basically a very slightly faster auto-focus on the kit lens, and more importantly a 460,000 dot LCD vs. the 230,000 dot LCD on the E-PL1.

I thought that extra resolution would make a significant difference in usability, but I demoed both and it really didn't at all. (They both have a "magnify" button that will zoom to 100% crop if you wish to manual focus the camera. And if you really want to do a lot of manual focus, you'll probably have bought the VF-2 digital viewfinder anyway.) Also, I felt the grip on the E-PL1 is more secure than the E-PL2; I wish they hadn't changed that.

All in all I think the E-PL1 is truly a great camera for 400 dollars. I like that Olympus has a good amount of lenses out already, and that the camera bodies have image stabilization built in, which (slightly) decreases the lens cost.

I don't think I'd get the E-PL2 for 550. My biggest issue is that I wish there were more manual controls on the body. The menu system is set up well, and you really don't have to dive very deep for manual control once you set it up properly, but I would still prefer more dials.

They are both great for people who want a great camera but don't want to fool around with manual conrol, because of the "Live Guide" mode. Basically you can adjust the picture with sliders. Adjust the "blur" slider to change the depth of field instead of understanding aperture, etc. So it's marketed for beginners, but you can definitely shoot it full manual.

In the end, none of the micro 4/3 cameras have that perfect combination of features for me quite yet, and I don't need a new camera right now, so I'm waiting to see what the currently non-existent E-P3 brings, and of course new models from Panasonic, etc.

Anyway, this turned into a mini-review but I was going to say that you could get the E-PL1 and the Panasonic 20 mm f/1.7 lens for about 600-650 dollars to mimic the X100. Of course the image quality isn't going to be to that level as the X100, but still quite great. And about half the price, with the ability to change lenses.

# ¿ May 10, 2011 22:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:46

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

I don't really understand rangefinder cameras. So if you hooked a rangefinder lens to your micro 4/3s camera would you see a double image on your LCD that needed to be converged to focus? Or is that just how the viewfinder worked on rangefinder cameras in order to approximate focus, since you couldn't actually see the image coming through the lens? So in that case, focusing with a rangefinder lens on a m4/3 camera would look just like focusing any other lens?

# ¿ May 13, 2011 12:51

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

What is this the x100 thread now? NO, I'm not jealous, why would you say that?

# ¿ Jun 24, 2011 22:54

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

Not all EVFs are poo poo, by any means. There's a huge range in resolution and usability out there. There was one camera I tried in a store that had an amazing EVF, but I can't remember at all what it was.

# ¿ Jul 15, 2011 16:34

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

MediumWellDone posted:

I have to ask if was it a nice nice dream? Because there is no way an EVF is ever as good as an OVF.

I think you're having an argument with yourself or something because I can't see where I said that.

# ¿ Jul 15, 2011 21:04

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

krackmonkey posted:

I'm sorry I stirred up such a hornet's nest by asking about x100 v. M4/3. Tiny camera folks are a little touchy, it seems. This goes for overpriced point and shoot owners as well :P

Sounds like somebody has never been in a thread of Canon and Nikon DSLR owners.

# ¿ Jul 20, 2011 20:05

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

I live in NYC so I see cameras all the time everywhere, and I've actually yet to see a NEX camera that wasn't in the hands of a Japanese man. Tons of consumer level Canon and Nikon DSLRs though. And I've seen a number of Panasonic micro4/3 cameras, including the latest G3, but nobody with a PEN camera as of yet.

A couple weeks ago at a museum I saw an older man with a Leica M9. Unfortunately it was too crowded for me to hit him over the head and drag him behind an exhibit.

# ¿ Aug 26, 2011 03:56

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

HPL posted:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1108/11082615panasonic14-42Xpreview.asp

Holy crap, I want.

# ¿ Sep 1, 2011 17:33

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

Cacator posted:

I literally picked one up yesterday for my E-P3 and I like it very much. I'm mainly happy due to its low-light performance, sharpness and relative affordability.

Do you have a public flickr? I'd love to see some photos with that combination.

# ¿ Sep 27, 2011 20:22

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

Cacator posted:

Leaked pictures of Fuji's new mirrorless: http://photorumors.com/2011/11/15/fuji-mirrorless-camera-leaked/#more-15512

Edit: From the comments

I wonder how the optical viewfinder is supposed to work. Maybe it will only work for a few select lenses, and when the lens is attached it will move to a pre-calibrated 18 mm or 35 mm position so it will work with the primes. And maybe it will work with the zoom too as long as it's not a long telephoto.

# ¿ Nov 15, 2011 20:21

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

Do you not have Photoshop or Lightroom?

# ¿ Nov 19, 2011 06:46

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

Those Fuji lenses are pretty sexy. Why can't Sony put out compact yet fast lenses like that?

# ¿ Jan 9, 2012 03:44

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

Here's an alleged picture of the OM-D

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ¿ Jan 22, 2012 23:38

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

whatever7 posted:

Pentax's new EVIL will have the giant empty mirror box thing anyway since they are going to keep the mount.

That's true, if they keep the same mount they have to deal with the same flange distance anyway. Seems like a pretty pointless camera to me. Not that much more compact, but missing an OVF. What am I missing?

# ¿ Jan 23, 2012 20:50

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

More rumor-mongering:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/olympus-eyeing-partnership-with-sony/

This rumor says that Olympus is eying ties with Sony, with a possibility that Sony could make image sensors for Olympus in return for access to IP, etc. from Olympus' endoscopy and microscopy business. This is a rumor I REALLY want to be true. A camera system with an 4/3 image sensor designed by Sony and m4/3 lenses would be the perfect mirrorless system.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2012 01:29

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

Slimchandi posted:

Turns out when I get home, my grandpa has a camera he bought recently, but doesn't use much. Something about 'It doesn't have any zoom at all, he likes zoom'. Apparently I can have it if it's any use to me?

So a free X100 coming my way!

You lucky motherfucker. The odds of something like that happening are so low, since most people can't afford/wouldn't buy a camera that expensive without knowing everything about it in the first place.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2012 01:34

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

FasterThanLight posted:

My parents are looking for a telephoto zoom for m4/3 (E-PL1, specifically). Nothing serious, just vacation-type stuff, and they just have a kit lens at the moment. Any recommendations?

If they want a "travel zoom" lens that goes wide to tele, so they can just stick it on the camera and forget about it, there's this Olympus 14-150 mm lens. My brother has it and it performs pretty well for a zoom that covers such a wide range in focal length. $500
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/674725-REG/Olympus_261504_M_Zuiko_Digital_ED_14_150mm.html

If they want just a telephoto lens, the Panasonic 45-200 mm is probably the one to go with. Decent zoom range, and has optical image stabilization, which would be nice if your parents ever decided to switch to Panasonic. Sensor stabilization doesn't work as well as optical stabilization on long telephotos anyway. $250
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/588078-REG/Panasonic_H_FS045200_45_200mm_f_4_5_6_G_Vario.html

# ¿ Jan 28, 2012 00:36

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

Startyde posted:

Panny discontinuing the 20 has completely fetishized it and the prices aren't going down.

That seems very unlikely to me that Panasonic would discontinue that lens, and I can't find any information supporting that on the internet.

# ¿ Jan 28, 2012 19:32

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

spankmeister posted:

That's what I call a pancake lens though, drat.

Fake pancake lens. Looks to me like they made the new "short flange" lens to be recessed really deeply into that fat body, instead of making a thin NEX style camera that has an A-mount adapter, like Sony.

Finally, a camera uglier than a Canon G shot. I knew it could be done.

# ¿ Feb 1, 2012 22:15

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

More Pentax K-01 pics:

All of my LOLs, Pentax. Brought to you by the Marc Newson, the designer who created the following:

Lance Armstrong bike:

Black, yellow, and an abomination before God. The three fundamentals of design according to Marc Newson.

Dear Pentax, I hear you want to design a camera that no one will buy. I've attached my portolio, a chair that no one would buy. Please respond.

# ¿ Feb 2, 2012 17:16

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

Here's an article where a Pentax executive tries to explain why anyone would want to buy this camera and fails miserably:
http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2143551/pentax-unveils-compact-01-mirrorless-camera

BJP posted:

BJP: Can you tell us what is the target audience for this camera?

Jonathan Martin: The K-01 is aimed at, first and foremost, the fashion and design market, which we see as a new market for us. But it's also aimed at current Pentax users, who will have the ability of using their current range of Pentax lenses on a brand new product.

BJP: Why were you interested in the fashion and design audience?

Jonathan Martin: That's important because it's traditionally a younger audience - an audience that Pentax, traditionally, hasn't approached and hasn't managed to get hold of. So with our collaboration with Mark Newson [an Australian designer], we hope to use this exposure to actively target that audience for, probably, the first time.

BJP: But what about the amateur and semi-professional market, as well as non-Pentax users? Do you think the K-01 will attract them?

Jonathan Martin: I think it will attract them. I think it will certainly stand out in the retail environment because of the design of the product. It will make people look - people that are generally curious.

BJP: The design is very different from what you would expect from a compact mirrorless camera. What was the thinking behind it?

Jonathan Martin: The collaboration between Mark and Pentax mainly took place in Japan. From what I can see, we gave him an open book and we embraced all of his ideas.

BJP: Was it a conscious choice to select Pentax's K-mount?

Jonathan Martin: I think so. It gives us [access to] a lot of existing users...

BJP: ...but that also means, in terms of using an APS-C sized sensor, it makes a more chunky camera body.

Jonathan Martin: It has to be bigger, yes.

BJP: But for a compact interchangeable lens camera, don't you think it's too big?

Jonathan Martin: No I don't think so. I think the size of the product is outweighted by the range of lensesthat you can use on the product.

BJP: But how are you going to convince people that have a DSLR camera to go with something that is almost similar in size to a DSLR?

Jonathan Martin: Well, it's whether they want to go with mirrorless features rather than a traditional DSLR.

BJP: What are these mirrorless features that you don't find in a DSLR?

Jonathan Martin: ... design, really. Design.

BJP: So you're basically banking on design?

Jonathan Martin: We're banking on design, and on the fact that they are - we know because we've done market research - a lot of Pentax users that have been waiting for a K-mount mirrorless product.

BJP: But don't they want something more compact in size?

It's pretty sad when even Pentax can't make a convincing argument on why you should buy their camera.

This is what that Pentax executive looked like during the interview.

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ¿ Feb 2, 2012 18:21

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

Brick Card posted:

I like the new Pentax K-01

Brick Card posted:

really like the fact that you can use SLR lenses with it. I even like that it's bulkier because that lets you actually grip it.

You can use SLR lenses with any of the mirrorless cameras. And there doesn't look to be anything ergonomic about this camera. The NEX-5N and NEX 7 certainly have much deeper grips, while being much smaller and thinner.

Brick Card posted:

People need to get over the presumption that mirrorless cameras have to be thinner, they don't. They're just an evolution in design.

Being compact is the entire point of mirrorless. Otherwise, everyone would choose to have the optical viewfinder and better autofocus that DSLRs will give you. The second advantage to mirrorless is the short flange distance that makes it easy to adapt all sorts of lenses, another feature the K-01 is missing. Yes, you can radically change camera design with mirrorless, such as the way Sony completely reinvented how to go about manual control design and EVF design with the NEX-7. But this is just a half-melted DSLR with a yellow paint scheme.

Brick Card posted:

I sort of look at it like the old platter harddrives and newer SSD harddrives. Solid state is clearly better and the future but the tech is not quite developed enough or cheap enough to completely replace the old style drives.

You're right, the K-01 IS a lot like a hard drive missing the platter heads.

# ¿ Feb 2, 2012 23:00

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

Laser Cow posted:

I think the OM-D is the right direction for mirrorless though, EVF and a compact 1970s SLR size.

The EVF resolution is disappointing for the price they are wanting to sell the camera at though. The difference between the 2.44 million dot EVF on the Sony NEX-7 and the 1.44 m dot Olympus VF-2 add-on is just night and day. I wasn't expecting to be blown away so much, but the Sony EVF is finally a truly usable resolution.

# ¿ Feb 3, 2012 17:03

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

Having a "pro" battery grip on a camera with a middling EVF and average Panasonic image sensor seems pretty silly to me.

However, I love all the physical button/dial placement on the camera itself. It looks very functional to me.

# ¿ Feb 5, 2012 19:40

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

RustedChrome posted:

You are right. They say that battery grips are for easier portrait shooting and extra battery life, but we know it's really just a fashion accessory to let people know we are PRO!

I would hate to be out in public with my PRO camera and have someone mistake it for an OM-D.

....okay. I think the point actually is that people who would need a battery grip would be using a much better camera, instead of a camera with the main selling point of being "good for the size" which would be negated by a battery grip.

# ¿ Feb 5, 2012 20:04

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

Bob Socko posted:

God, they even screwed up the little things. Why put a flash symbol next to the flash button, then label the flash button UP? Why not just put the flash symbol on the button itself? This is stupid, everything about it is stupid.

I think it was DESIGNED to be stupid, after all, their target customer is Derek Zoolander.

# ¿ Feb 7, 2012 14:49

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

They'd need more than water protection if there was a Sony sensor in there. :gizz:

# ¿ Feb 10, 2012 22:37

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

ChiTownEddie posted:

For you m4/3 peoples:
Which is considered better, the oly 17mm/2.8 or the panasonic 14mm/2.5?

You should get the Panasonic 14 mm between the two, because the Olympus 17 mm is too redundant in focal length to the superior Panasonic 20 mm f/1.7.

# ¿ Feb 20, 2012 17:27

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

Clayton Bigsby posted:

Is 12 too wide? The Olympus 12/2 has been getting some very good reviews.

There's no right answer to that, it's all personal preference. It really depends on what you want from the lens, and what your other lenses are. If you want an all purpose prime you can just slap on your camera and forget about it, then yes, it's too wide. That's a fantastic focal length for landscapes of course, but if you take pictures of people or indoors, it can sometimes look pretty goofy, especially on the outer portions of the frame. There's just enough difference that you don't really notice that on a 28 mm lens.

But on the other hand, if you already had the Panasonic 20 mm prime, then you've already got a great all-purpose prime that is good for people shots, and non-wide landscapes and buildings. So a wide 24 mm prime would be a good compliment to that, especially if you were okay with carrying both lenses with you.

# ¿ Feb 20, 2012 19:52

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

Cacator posted:

Also, no suggestions on my X100's hot pixel? It doesn't seem to be common.

You've had it for 3 days, why not just return it?

# ¿ Feb 22, 2012 05:58

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

Good lord, man. What do you intend to shoot with that set-up, portrait shots? Or maybe fill-flash the moon's craters?

# ¿ Feb 25, 2012 06:06

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

Pompous Rhombus posted:

NEX-7 kits are available in Japan (where I live) and actually a fair bit cheaper, but the catch is the Japanese-only menus. I can deal with it, but it'd torpedo the resale value of the camera when I leave Japan.

Couldn't you put English firmware on it?

# ¿ Mar 21, 2012 09:58

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

whatever7 posted:

But who goes around and take picture of small objects all day.

Me, when I was doing your boudoir photos.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2012 13:34

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

Killer Queen posted:

How would the new Sigma 19mm f/2.8 be compared to the Panasonic 20mm pancake? I don't think I'm ready to drop over $300 on a lens yet, but I want something better to replace my E-PL2's kit lens and the Sigma seems solid.

Well, the 20 mm Panasonic is 0.8" shorter, and a stop and a half faster. That amount of light-gathering is nothing to scoff at for m4/3 with its limited DOF and high ISO compared to APS-C. For something typically considered a "long term investment" like a camera lens, I would think the Panasonic is definitely worth it, but it's your money. The sigma 19 mm certainly isn't a bad lens.

# ¿ Mar 30, 2012 19:46

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

HPL posted:

plus you've got the upgraded sensor

That's no bonus though. The NEX-7 sensor performs worse at high ISO and performs poorer with adapted wide angle lenses, all for the sake of megapixels that no one will ever use.

# ¿ Apr 23, 2012 00:24

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

Random Task posted:

Yeah, I'm in the camp that would rather have the 5N sensor. Actually I'd rather have the 5N sensor cropped down to a 12 MP m4/3 model

That would be the best mirrorless camera ever. I have tiny, tiny amounts of hope of that happening since Sony is courting Olympus for access to Olympus' medical optics intellectual property. Maybe, just maybe Olympus will ask for the right to buy Sony sensors instead of just cash infusion.

# ¿ Apr 24, 2012 04:48

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

HPL posted:

As for the lenses, all Sony needs to do is release one killer pancake lens and the NEX system will bust wide open.

I'm not sure that will ever happen. I think something about the flange distance and how the Sony sensors react to light coming in at angles is basically making it impossible to make a pancake lens with good optics for the NEX system.

If it was really feasible, a third party would have done it by now. But I think they haven't been able to make one that's worth shooting.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2012 23:39

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

Here's something someone wrote on the internet at Christmas time in a thread about Leica that I thought was humorous:

(to the tune of Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer)

But do you recall, the most over-priced camera of all?
BUM BUM BUM

Leica the red-dot camera
Costs a whole lot of dough
If you ever see someone with one
He'll be sure to let you know

All of the other cameras
With comparable image quality
Aren't super cool and retro
So gently caress your 2/3rds cheaper 5d.

If you want to start with Leica
You can try out the D-lux 5.
Oh poo poo, are you loving serious?
It's just a re-branded Panasonic LX-5?

Oh well, I'm sure it worth it,
Because of the extras it's got
Like a non-pirated copy of Lightroom
And a 500 extra dollars red dot.

# ¿ May 13, 2012 23:18

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

The EM-5 seems like such an awesomely built camera, and it also seems to have less noise at ISO 3200 than the NEX-7 (which is pretty hilarious, thanks for those megapixels, Sony).

But the one thing it seems to lack, is an ineffable quality to the pictures. When I look at the NEX pictures on Flickr and the internet, they just seem to have not only a better dynamic range, but this indescribable quality that makes them look more professional. Whereas when I look at the EM-5 pictures, there's no issue with noise anymore, but they still seem a little closer in LOOKING like a higher quality compact camera picture, than a DSLR picture. But that's just my opinion.

# ¿ May 24, 2012 20:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:46

Costello Jello: Oct 24, 2003; It had to start somewhere

FasterThanLight posted:

It's probably not really a pancake, but a collapsible lens. The m43 kit lenses are like this - they look small collapsed, but look like a normal kit zoom when in use.

The actual rumor is that it's a power zoom, so yes, very collapsible. But no mechanical control at all. If it's true, I think it's a good idea for NEX, because even though I don't like power zooms, it'd be a handy thing to have in addition to primes, since they have no worthy pancakes for the E-mount.

# ¿ May 25, 2012 18:16

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > The Mirrorless Thread: Son(y), I Am Disappoint.

«‹›4 »