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.

«‹›9 »

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

whatever7 posted:

OK after Fuji there is really two guys that can make a premium FF system. Leica and Zeiss. Let's face it, even if these guys make it I doubt I will be able to afford it. When the Contax G2 system was available, the lens price was very comparable with the manual Zeiss lens prices of today.

Although I think there is certainly a market for FF mirrorless camera. Zeiss need to secure a long term FF sensor contract to make one.

Well Leica's mirrorless FF is already the M9 so that just leaves Zeiss, which said in an interview they don't ever intend to make cameras again. I think the current Zeiss Ikon is the only camera that they'll "make". I'd love to see a digital FF version of the Zeiss Ikon but I doubt it will ever happen. They seem to be firmly entrenched in making lenses and I think even their focus on lens is slowly shifting over to cine lenses.

# ¿ Dec 25, 2011 10:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:51

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

whatever7 posted:

Some Japanese company can still buy Zeiss and start making FF mirrorless system. Or they can license out the Contax name again like Kyrocea did. I hope whoever do that also license out the in-sensor AF technology from Nikon, it will make AF alot faster. Now I wonder who share the same finance group with Nikon. Nikon belongs to the Mitsubishi Keiretsu, Sony and Fujifilm belongs to another (Mitshi), I don't know Kyrcera or Cosina belongs to which Keiretsu. Hard to google this poo poo.

Well I don't really see a point of a Japanese company buying Zeiss to make mirrorless FF since Zeiss doesn't have any technology for sensors. They could however enter a partnership with Zeiss to make AF lenses like what Zeiss did with Sony. It would be nice to see one of them license the Contax brand from Zeiss since Kyocera relinquished it and then revive the Contax range again as mirrorless (FF) cameras.

# ¿ Dec 26, 2011 04:31

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Rontalvos posted:

If the NEX-7 has an EVF that's viewable with sunglasses/glasses on then I'll probably go for that, if not then maybe an x100 or whatever this new thing fuji is teasing. Otherwise back to my 40D. (Oh god so heavy)

I've just got hold of a review copy NEX-7 and I can say that it does work with glasses on. However you've got use the eyecup thing they give otherwise you'll see blurring and color shifts if your eye is not parallel to the EVF.

# ¿ Jan 5, 2012 01:15

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

New Fuji X-pro 1 photos, it's looking good! http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/two-new-full-size-x-pro-1-images/

# ¿ Jan 8, 2012 17:25

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

whatever7 posted:

So the pancake lens is the 18mm. I think I will only buy that one and keep my 28mm and up lens in AIS mount. That way I can move on to Canon or Nikon full frame if I want.

Is the hotshoe same as the S5Pro hotshoe?

They might have another semi-pancake lens in the upcoming 23/2 lens that should come out later on. It's supposed to be adapted from the X100. No idea about the hotshoe type though.

# ¿ Jan 8, 2012 19:00

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

whatever7 posted:

Let's say somebody make a truly open platform, a body with open mount design that can runs third party apps. As long as an open platform is available, somebody in China will make electric mount adapters that can control EF and F lenses properly. Reverse engineering is not the problem, Sigma has done it. Making it legally might be a problem.

Maybe this is the beginning of an open-source camera: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/12/PolaroidAndroid

# ¿ Jan 14, 2012 05:07

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

HPL posted:

What about each do you particularly like?

Maybe specs and price of OM-D but look and feel of X-Pro 1?

# ¿ Feb 9, 2012 03:49

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

The latest m4/3 sensors do perform pretty well up to about 3200 so I think they make for a valid option now, especially with all the new fast lenses coming out.

# ¿ Feb 23, 2012 00:27

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Anyone using the EM-5 with the 20/1.7 lens and has experienced banding at higher ISOs yet? Seems to be rather reproducible, according to this thread: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&thread=41466000&page=1

# ¿ May 11, 2012 07:59

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Just bought a EM-5 last night with the PanaLeica 25/1.4 lens and I'm totally blown away by it. Having a lot of fun with it so far! Here's a quick set of JPEGs I took of my friends after buying it. I only realised the in-camera NR is pretty horrible when I viewed them large on my computer.

# ¿ May 16, 2012 23:54

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Went out for a photowalk with the EM-5 yesterday, image quality is kicking rad! There was a fair amount of CA though, but mainly because I was shooting wide open under a high contrast situation.

Original

Common Flying Dragon Original by alkanphel, on Flickr

100% crop

Common Flying Dragon by alkanphel, on Flickr

# ¿ May 21, 2012 01:42

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Cacator posted:

What lens did you use?

The 25/1.4

# ¿ May 21, 2012 03:35

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Lon Lon Rabbit posted:

My OM-D and I spent the weekend in Tokyo with my cousin and his X Pro 1.

He's trading it in today for an OM-D.

To be fair, he loves the x pro to bits and is trading solely for auto focus issues as he shoots a lot of manic kids.

Haha no surprise there! By the way, how did you find the battery life of the OM-D?

# ¿ May 21, 2012 04:10

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Just bought the 14/2.5 and 45/1.8 to add onto the 25/1.4 for my E-M5. Have to say these 2 are drat value for money lenses, they're tack-sharp and relatively cheap compared to DSLR lenses. And for once I now can have my camera and a 3 lens kit in my bag when I go out for a photowalk; unthinkable with a DSLR unless i wanted to kill my shoulder.

# ¿ May 25, 2012 00:02

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Clayton Bigsby posted:

Image quality: both impressed and not. The dynamic range as mentioned is superb by any digital camera standard, and blows anything else I have seen from m4/3 away. However, so far the jpegs out of camera do have a bit of the "small camera" look somehow. You know, the not-quite-sharp-in-every-detail, not-quite-crisp when you look into fine detail like grass. I will hold judgment until I shoot some raws though, but at this point it lacks the microcontrast and "snap" of the X100. Using the 20/1.7 lens which is impressive resolution wise, but it is possible the PanaLeica has more microcontrast. Or that I get more out of the raws. Admittedly I am pixel-peeping here though; doubt there would be a big difference in prints at normal sizes.

The RAWs are definitely better, I find that the in-camera noise reduction simply turns the image quality to mush, especially past iso 800. I'm quite happy with the detail from the sensor, like I posted this 100% crop earlier in the thread. ACR cleans away noise very well at 1600 & 3200, and once you resize them down to say 1024px on the long side, you hardly notice much noise.

# ¿ May 26, 2012 00:08

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

I like the skin tones when shooting people with the E-M5 as well, very natural.

Wilfred by alkanphel, on Flickr

Gerald by alkanphel, on Flickr

# ¿ May 27, 2012 00:41

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Costello Jello posted:

I don't know, seems to be skewing a little yellow in your pics.

Hmm you think so? Looks fine enough on my monitor though.

# ¿ May 27, 2012 01:53

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Clayton Bigsby posted:

Guess who has a 45/1.8.

Also, drat Olympus for taking cues from Canon in not including the lens hood and selling it separately for a ridiculous sum.

For fun, my 1Ds II + 85/1.8 weighs 1975 grams.

E-M5 + 45/1.8 541 grams.

This is why I'm so happy now that I can carry around the E-M5 with 3 primes in the same space that I carried a DSLR and 1 prime. For much less weight too!

What other lenses did you get by the way?

# ¿ Jun 19, 2012 00:20

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Clayton Bigsby posted:

I have the 45 and the 20. Since the 14 is so cheap now (GF3 + 14mm kits being dumped and parted out) I might add that too.

You should, I have the 14 and it performs wonderfully, even wide open (which I rarely use it wide open anyway). Definitely a super value for money lens, and it's even smaller and thinner than the 20!

# ¿ Jun 19, 2012 11:20

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Clayton Bigsby posted:

Got a 14/2.5 on order, sort of. Normally they go for 3790 SEK here when available; photo dealer was running a special on a GF3+13/2.5 combo for 2490 SEK. I figure I can easily dump the GF3 for 1000 so that leaves me with a pretty decent deal on the lens. Supposedly a Lightroom 3 license is also included in the deal so I bet I can pawn that off for a decent sum as well.

That'll leave me with the 14/2.5, 20/1.7 and 45/1.8. Should be an excellent m43 system.

Fine choice! You won't believe how good the 14/2.5 really is. Once I got it I never saw the point of paying so much more for the 12/2, unless you really really need the extra 4mm and speed.

# ¿ Jul 8, 2012 01:36

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

rio posted:

The Canon mirrorless specs were leaked today.

There's even a video on it now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPyhM2x9gT8

# ¿ Jul 23, 2012 02:23

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Star War Sex Parrot posted:

Is it safe to assume that because there are no optics in the adapter that you won't lose a stop like you do with a traditional teleconverter?

To lose a stop of light with a extension tube, the length of the tube has to be half the focal length of the lens put on it, so usually it's ok. Anyway the camera has auto-exposure TTL so it should compensate for it.

# ¿ Jul 25, 2012 00:22

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Anti-Derivative posted:

Has anyone here purchased the OM-D?

I already have the Panasonic 14-42 kit lens that came with my GF-2.

I'm debating between getting the OM-D body only for �999, or getting it with the 12-50mm kit lens for �1150.

Since I would sell the 14-42 if I got the olympus lens, the question is whether the 12-50 kit is worth the approx �75ish (�150 - value of 14-42) difference. I rarely use the 14-42, but it *is* nice to have if I need some versatility and don't want to carry around multiple primes.

I think the question is really, do you need a zoom? I bought my OM-D just body only and fitted it out with a prime cos I don't really use zooms.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2012 23:01

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Don't forget to throw in a good flash too!

# ¿ Aug 10, 2012 00:08

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Edward IV posted:

I've never actually followed a product announcement at Photokina and their subsequent release. How soon will those new E-mount lenses be available for sale? Is it possible for them to be out by, say, Columbus Day weekend?

I don't think there's any fixed or even average timing between a product announcement and its release. The Canon 24-70 II was announced last year and it's still not out yet, while the 5D3 came out about a week after it was announced.

# ¿ Aug 10, 2012 01:59

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

And sometimes the size of the lens can't be made too small due to the laws of physics in trying to produce an image circle that covers full-frame. Perhaps someday they might just produce optical material that can allow for much smaller lenses but I don't think anytime soon yet.

# ¿ Sep 10, 2012 06:00

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

whatever7 posted:

There is only one explanation: this camera was designed by the Sony P&S team.

Well it is under the Cybershot family :v:

# ¿ Sep 13, 2012 05:45

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Yeah I thought they would just modify the X100 lens design but it looks a lot bigger than that now.

# ¿ Sep 19, 2012 00:22

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Uncle Ivan posted:

It's a whole stop faster so it's a pretty big increase in bulk, weight, and cost.

Hmm I don't know why I glazed over the aperture but you're right, it would have to be around that size for a 1.4

# ¿ Sep 19, 2012 01:24

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

RustedChrome posted:

Is anyone else interested in those Zeiss lenses that were announced for Sony and Fuji mounts? If the price is reasonable, I will be very much interested.

They're gonna price them similar to the existing Zeiss 24/1.8 lens for NEX you can gauge the pricing from there.

# ¿ Sep 20, 2012 06:08

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Just got the new Olympus 60mm macro for m4/3 and I did a test shoot with it.

Ten Cents by alkanphel, on Flickr

Fern 2 by alkanphel, on Flickr

# ¿ Sep 29, 2012 07:58

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Augmented Dickey posted:

How's the AF performance? That's my main beef with the 35mm macro.

Pretty fast if you have the right range limiter set. But even if you use the full range, it's still faster than the other DSLR macro lenses because the distance that the lens element groups have to travel is so much shorter. Most of the time the misfocus was because of the movement of my hands/body at 1:1.

# ¿ Sep 30, 2012 01:30

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

keyframe posted:

Is anyone planning on getting the Sony RX-1?

I am kinda warming up to the idea of an amazing full frame compact camera and I shoot 35mm most of the time anyway. Somebody talk me out of spending so much money please

I think it would be a good buy, considering that they have the image crop functions to mimic a 50mm @ 18mp and 75mm @ 12mp.

# ¿ Oct 19, 2012 04:29

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

^^ Like what he said, and also the quality should be pretty good, considering the OM-D is 16mp and the EP-3 is around 12mp and they both deliver good images.

# ¿ Oct 19, 2012 06:26

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Anmitzcuaca posted:

is there a wide-angle adapter ala X100 for it too? That would be amazing.

Not at the moment I think but if they're smart they should release one in the future.

# ¿ Oct 19, 2012 10:13

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Olympus has officially announced the 17/1.7 at $499.

Here's a simple review by Robin Wong: http://robinwong.blogspot.be/2012/11/olympus-mzuiko-17mm-f18-review-street.html
And at Pekka Potka: http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2012/11/14/olympus-mzuiko-17mm-f18.html

# ¿ Nov 15, 2012 08:47

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

I probably won't get that since I already have the 14mm and I don't seem to use it much at all. Unless someone wants to buy it from me.

alkanphel fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Nov 16, 2012

# ¿ Nov 16, 2012 05:04

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

HPL posted:

The features available with touch screens are great, I don't like how easy it is to mess things up accidentally while carrying a camera around because of a stray finger or whatever. Personally, I think touch screen cameras are here to stay but it's a matter of how they apply them. They are great to supplement an existing control scheme but I do not think they will directly replace them.

I rather like the OM-D's implementation for the touchscreen, I've set it up so that I need to press a button that toggles the touchscreen on and off. This is mainly because I only use the touchscreen for the touch focus which is awesome and usually quite accurate, otherwise I leave it off all the time. And while the touchscreen is one of the more responsive ones I've used, it's still not fast or precise enough to replace manual controls.

# ¿ Nov 27, 2012 02:30

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

DJExile posted:

Those of you that have had the OM-D system, how have you liked it? Some of the glass available makes it look really tempting, especially the 17mm lenses and that 75mm f/1.8

Very very much. There isn't much reason not to like the OM-D, except unless you really need accurate continuous focus or very very clean high ISO. Prints decently to A3+ as well.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2012 23:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:51

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

DJExile posted:

Thanks, y'all own. I'm offloading some of my 4/3 gear and going to pick one of these up with an adapter so I can still use my 7-14mm and 35-100 f/2.0

Olympus recently patented an adapter for 4/3 to m4/3 which would allow you to have AF with the 4/3 lenses on m4/3 bodies. No idea when or if it actually coming out though.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2012 10:40

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

«‹›9 »