mpgxsvcd: That camera is HUGE! Says my Olympus E-M5 MK II.
Yes I have had mine for more than a week.
mpgxsvcd: There may be better cameras out there for specific areas of photography. However, if you can’t take a great picture in any situation with this camera then it isn't the cameras fault.
So few people actually print to those sizes anymore. Yes there are people who still do it but that is not the norm and I bet you would be surprised at how well these pictures actually print even when blown up top moderate sizes.
There may be better cameras out there for specific areas of photography. However, if you can’t take a great picture in any situation with this camera then it isn't the cameras fault.
mpgxsvcd: I would be willing to bet that no one is ever able to take a truly good picture with this camera at the 35mm equivalent of 2000mm.
My 8 inch F4.0 telescope gives me the 35mm equivalent of 1600mm. That perfectly fills a 16:9 aspect ratio with the moon. However, it has to be on a tracking mount in order to follow the moon’s motion at this focal length. Therefore, it is unrealistic to think that you are going to get great images or even videos of objects in space while hand holding this camera or if it is on a non-tracking tripod mount.
The lack of RAW is a good indication that these images are useless without massive in camera distortion correction. Even with the correction they are probably still close to useless. That is a tiny sensor with a ridiculous zoom range.
This camera would have been so much better if they just gave it a 25x zoom and a faster aperture instead.
That is a really poor moon image and that definitely isn't at 2000mm hand held. It is probably at 1500mm or less.
I think Rishi should make a guest appearance on “Big Bang Theory”. He could be Sheldon’s new arch nemesis. He would play the guy that simply knows everything.
mpgxsvcd: Wow, Rishi! What a very thorough review. The dynamic range data was very intriguing and not at all what I would have expected. Great job uncovering that.
I still like the A7s because its video capabilities are outstanding. However, I have a lot more respect for the A7r now after this review.
Please post that page. Your insight on this topic is exceptional and I would definitely like to see the deeper dive page.
I have a few questions. “In your opinion. How important is DR? Is it true that DR is only relevant if the DR of the scene you are shooting exceeds the DR that the sensor can capture?”
If two cameras have similar ISO 200 noise responses but different DR and the scene’s DR is not exceeding the DR of either camera will there be any difference in the output if we pull the shadows in post?
I rarely encounter situations where my highlights clip even at the recommended exposure setting because I don’t do a lot of landscape work. You even said that it is hard to force your test scene to push the DR of these cameras.
So how important would this DR information be to us if we don’t shoot a lot of scenes with DR? If we shoot a lot of evenly lit but very low light scenes wouldn't high ISO performance be more important? Would the A7s be a good choice in that case?
If you can afford these bags then you can probably just afford to pay someone else to carry your equipment for you in whatever bag they want to use. Seriously those bags cost more than all of my camera equipment combined. Not to mention that they probably don’t fit in the overheads on an airplane or under the seat in front of you.
You couldn’t use the 35mm equivalent of 1600mm on a safari. 800mm is about the most you could affectively use. Perhaps even 600mm would be sufficient.
Now I could definitely get better safari pictures with something like the Panasonic FZ1000 because it shoots RAW than I could with this camera. More than half of the zoom range on this camera is completely and totally useless.
It is really the way Rishi wrote about the DR that was new and improved. He wrote a very easy to understand article that made it simple for everyone else to see what was happening. Some of the articles or data that were presented before this really didn't explain what was going on.
Rishi may not have been the first to discover this DR issue. However, he was the first person to succinctly express what was causing it and how it affects the way we shoot. I commend him for that.
Your comment makes no sense at all. I am saying exactly the same thing that you said. No one could ever hand hold a 35mm equivalent 2000mm lens.
However, you can get great space images with a good tracking mount and a 35mm equivalent 1500mm-2000mm telescope. Just check my image galleries for some samples like that with my 800mm F4.0 telescope and my Micro Four thirds cameras. Those cameras give me a 1600mm field of view in 35mm terms with the m4/3s 2x crop factor and my 800mm telescope.
Wow, Rishi! What a very thorough review. The dynamic range data was very intriguing and not at all what I would have expected. Great job uncovering that.
mpgxsvcd: Just curious. How many JPG+RAW images can it take in burst mode before the buffer memory fills up?
The preview doesn’t make it clear that those numbers are for RAW+JPG. It appears that those numbers are specifically for RAW only. Does this camera really shoot the same number of RAW files in burst mode as it does RAW+JPGs? Most cameras shoot far less RAW+JPG files in burst mode than they do for RAW only. What makes this camera different? Is it not writing the JPGs to the buffer?
mpgxsvcd: I am so glad I bought the Olympus E-M5 MK II last weekend. It runs circles around every A-PSC camera that Nikon and Canon make in this price range. The E-M5 MK II has better video capabilities, better features like 5 stop IBIS, Live Time, 63 megapixel mode, Great AFC tracking, and better burst speeds. Not to mention that it is much smaller, lighter, and less expensive.
Nikon and Canon both need to realize that mirrorless will be the future whether they like it or not.
I have been testing the E-M5 MK II with the 25mm F1.4 and the 35-100mm F2.8 lenses. I would say the focus tracking is very good with the 35-100mm F2.8 and acceptable with the 25mm F1.4. I think the E-M5 MK II has better focusing tracking than the GH4 does with the same Panasonic lenses.
I really find it hard to believe that the focus tracking of the DSLRs in this price range is any better with fast focal ratio lenses.
I can’t help thinking that camera companies are actually lens companies that just happen to make camera bodies that will only work with the lenses they make. If you don’t own a bag full of Nikon lenses already then there are much more compelling options for less money out there.
The D7200 is announced almost 1 month after the Canon T6s and yet the D7200 will probably ship before the T6s in April. I have a feeling that Canon doesn’t have their HDR video mode working yet.
Just curious. How many JPG+RAW images can it take in burst mode before the buffer memory fills up?
I love the dual memory card slots.
That camera is HUGE! Says my Olympus E-M5 MK II.
I am so glad I bought the Olympus E-M5 MK II last weekend. It runs circles around every A-PSC camera that Nikon and Canon make in this price range. The E-M5 MK II has better video capabilities, better features like 5 stop IBIS, Live Time, 63 megapixel mode, Great AFC tracking, and better burst speeds. Not to mention that it is much smaller, lighter, and less expensive.
You simply cannot hand hold a 2000mm lens. Plus atmospheric conditions would play havoc with the image at that focal length. There also must be massive software lens corrections being done. That is why they didn't include RAW capabilities.