ThePhilips: Why there are no TCs for mirrorless, which go between the camera and the lens? Only the ones to screw on the lens?
You can use the Olympus 1.4x and 2.0x along with an MFT adapter and presumably still get AF with a four thirds lens...
Given that they tend to work better with longer focal lengths and reduce light, I can see why the MILC companies need to focus on the longer, fast lenses first, before bringing out a tele-converter. All f/2.8 or faster MFT lenses so far are 100mm or less, if I'm not mistaken.
Given that a smaller kit is one of the strengths of a MILC system, you'd think a 1.4x TC would be a desirable thing - but fast teles aren't going to be small or cheap, so they don't seem to focus on them...
Mark Smiles: Suppose a guy went to an hardware store to purchase a tool, say a hammer. The clerk would then run a credit check to see how much he could afford and quiz him about his intended use of the hammer including if he was going to make any money using the hammer. Then the clerk could then decide on what would be a fair price to charge for the hammer.
Suppose a gal had a sore throat and went to the drugstore to get some cough drops. The clerk would then check how much she could afford to pay, and determine how important her voice was to her earning a living. The clerk could then determine what he could then charge the gal.
In both of these examples the selling price of the product was not based upon the cost of production, but rather the intended use of the product.
I can hear the hammer manufacturer saying he used my hammer to build a million dollar house, of course I deserve a cut of the action, for I made him a tool. Likewise for the gate at the gal's concert ...
Ferling - you have just summed up exactly why there are always two side to these debates. $175 is a lot or a little, depending on the image!
Valentinian: Questions (waiting for Jan 28 for answers):is AF better than E M-5 ?is EVF better than E M-5 ?is shutter up to 1/8000 ?is as reliable as the E M-5 ?
If the answers are "yes", if more lenses will come up, and Olympus does not upgrade the E M-5 within 12 months (forget the E M1 -that's for 4/3 lenses), then I will switch to Fuji
Why reject the em-1 as being for 4/3 lenses?
This is the way a camera should be controlled.
Shutterspeed, aperture ... and ISO.
The three primary parameters of exposure.
Why did it take this long for camera makers to ditch PASM, and place ISO alongside shutter speed and aperture? This is much simpler and straight forward.
Thank you Fujifilm!This will be my next camera.
Like any user interface, different needs will mean that there is no one way that works best for everyone. I used to be very familiar with older SLR style controls with a shutter speed dial and aperture ring on the lens and thought I'd like going back to that type of interface. But it didn't take long trying it out to realize that I've adapted and find features of PASM to be more useful. For example, I can setup my SCN and ART slots on my E-M1 to quickly set ISO, shutter and aperture to some known values, along with other mode settings like drive mode. I can quickly switch between studio (low ISO, sync flash speed, mid range aperture, single frame with shutter delay) and low light (auto ISO, hand hold shutter speed, wide aperture) and so on with one click. While dials expose the interface in a 'better' way visually (assuming you don't have your eye to the camera), you potentially have four dials to change to switch 'modes'. Both have their pluses and minuses.
Jeff Seltzer: Good grief. I think people need therapy - so much hostility. All they did was introduce an improved version of an optional grip. You can choose to buy it or not. If you really like it, but $150 is too much and you can't afford it, then you probably shouldn't be buying expensive cameras in the first place. I don't know, I guess I just don't see the bad side of all this like so many of you.
I agree - manufacturing is all about incremental improvement. The ability to change the battery without removing the grip is nice when you are working with a camera, especially when on a tripod.
Looks like a great lens to rent, in the same way that I could never justify buying an 85mm, 50mm f/1.2 or tilt-shift lens when I shot a dSLR... Nice addition to the MFT system.
Fred Mueller: Andy
- I can't see that there is an equivalent of AF-On or any button that it could be comfortably assigned to - which is how I've shot my Nikons for years now. That would be missed by me.
- Another comment - the "full frame Gestapo" make a big deal out of DOF "control", but more often than not (w. D600/D700) I find myself shooting at smaller F-Stops than I would like in low light to INCREASE available DOF. There goes your FF noise advantage.
It is also my impression that most of the better M4/3 primes are quite sharp and behaved at max aperture - this is not generally true, at least historically, for the full frame lens catalogs. It is what is so notable about the 35mm Sigma for instance.
Another question - if you fit and ND filter does the EVF show normal gain?
And finally - multi aspect ratios in the VF - that seems like a huge thing to me.
As well as - the flip screen and shooting discreetly, and just a generally over-all much more stelthy shooting rig than full frame
See page 98 of the manual. Setting the AEL/AFL button mode to mode 3 make the shutter button to exposure lock and the AEL/AFL button do one shot focus in S-AF mode. When in C-AF it does continuous AF when the AFL button is pressed...
Mode 2 flips that around to do focus with the shutter button (but not exposure lock) and exposure lock with the AEL button.
RFC1925: It would be nice to see the exposure values right there on the comparison tool. Not very convinient having to download the JPGs to see them.
Think it's pretty important information to know while comparing the results that for example in the ISO 6400 shots the X-A1 required a longer exposure than the NEX-3N with the same ISO and aperture:
NEX-3N: 1/3200 f5.6
X-A1: 1/2000 f5.6
Hover over the 'i' in the corner...right next to the download link.
new boyz: Well, if you're looking for the best IQ, built-in adapter is better than detachable one. Roger Cicala has tested the effect of adapters, and the results weren't so good.
He does quality his findings with "Like a lot of tests, you can detect a very real difference in the lab that doesn’t make much difference at all in the real world." Generally I'd prefer one adapter that means my lenses could be used on both mounts, than adding bulk to every lens - but can't complain about having too much choice in this case :)
PerL: Slowly coming in full circle and looks very much like the APS-C DSLRs it is competing with. The usual argument for mirror less is that people leave their DSLRs at home, because of the weight and bulk. Is this so radically different?
PS: What do people use for a wide prime for Canikon APS-C these days?
Greg VdB: Of course this lens is not for everybody, but some people could become VERY happy with it. If the 10mm is of the same high standard as Samyang's FF lenses, this will become the must-have lens for crop-system nightsky photography. I couldn't wait and bought Sigma's 11-16mm in the meantime, but if coma and astigmatism are better corrected in the 10mm than in the 11-16, I'll probably be changing. The manual focus is no problem for a lens this wide, and the manual aperture is even an advantage for shooting timelapse series. Can't wait for the Photozone, Lenstip, and maybe David Kingham reviews!
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8? http://www.tokinalens.com/tokina/products/atxpro/atx116prodxii/
lightnfast: My young nephew was watching me struggle with a Galaxy tablet to take a picture in sun light. I had left my camera home. He made a statement that kind of made sense. He said, why don't they just put a view finder somewhere convenient on those tablets, they are big enough and that would help eliminate that 'I can't see the picture on the tablet in bright light issue'. I said they do not put view finders on that smart phone you have. He said I guess it doesn't have enough room , but Uncle that table sure does. And I think they would sell a boat load of them.
Here you go - the world is yours for $29.95! http://www.daylightviewfinder.com/
sunkenbranch: It was pleasing to see the conclusion. I have the D7100 and am getting the Olympus next week! Wishiing good food and good images to everyone. It all started in a Nikon forum discussing the Df camera. Someone said you ought to check out the Olympus. May I offer the following linkshttp://blog.mingthein.com/2013/09/10/olympus-om-d-e-m1-review-1/http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/09/11/the-2013-olympus-om-d-e-m1-review-2/http://robinwong.blogspot.com.br/2013/09/olympus-om-d-e-m1-review-introduction.html
Does DXO take any photographs?
This statement says it all, and show that it is a 'fair' comparison amongst a field of outstanding cameras: "it's hard to imagine anyone being unhappy with any of these cameras". A few years ago people took outstanding professional and fine art images with cameras with lesser dynamic range, slower focusing (remember when you could only really rely on the center focus point) and long turn on times. We're getting a lot of bang for the buck these days. While there are differences between all of these cameras, they all have their happy owners and niche fan base.
That said, I'm not sure why DPR doesn't just provide the list and declare them all winners like they do in the text - declaring an overall winner at the end always exaggerates the differences.
Personally I went for the E-M1 - it is smaller than the dSLRs at this level, has a more consistent experience going between the viewfinder and LCD, and is the high end of a system with very portable options.
OneGuy: I like to read up on Nikon Df but GM1 is something I am actually thinking of getting. But I was looking for an answer to the ol' AF question. Is it better with 1.7/20mm lens? How much? I see some of your samples use the II version and -- come on, no comment on AF speed?
Is the lens protected well enough? I think it needs a wider (read noticeable) yet light and pliable shoulder strap (that could also be used for wrap-around protection in my daily regular bag).
Don't all Panasonics have that? The GF1 and GH2 that I've used had Quick AF: "The GF1 also has a Quick AF function that begins focusing as soon as the user aims the camera to enable quick focusing"
Vizio Virtù: Wake up, folks. They try to sell you this mirrorless / EVF rubbish as innovation for your weightsaving comfort but actually it's only for their cost reducing purposes. Cutting off the OVF is cutting off photographers creativity.
I don't see how an EVF cuts off your creativity. A side benefit to me of designing around an EVF is that AF is optimized around CDAF and sensor based PDAF so that focusing and use of the camera is identical in both the viewfinder and the LCD. This frees me up to not have to focus on two sets of user interfaces. What limits creativity is when I get a camera from Canon where I have to go into the custom menu items to turn on 'live view' and change focus modes... Being able to switch between the rear screen and EVF allows for easily taking shots at low angles, magnified focus with old manual focus lenses, video in the viewfinder, aspect ratio switching, previewing of exposure, etc. Plus, a OVF in a small dSLR is typically much less enjoyable to use than an EVF, in my experience. Nothing against OVFs, but not sure why people are so out to get EVFs! The size difference means I have one camera instead of two or three, and I use it for everything... Not 'rubbish' for all of us!
marike6: This kind of Fujifilm X100s infatuation has been finding its way into a few DPR articles of late, most notably the Nikon Df Preview and the whole "Retro Done Silly" fiasco.
I've enjoyed using both the X100 and X-E1 but I don't know too many photographers who would purposely choose an X100 over a proper FF DSLR, retro or not, for any other reason than convenience.
"Proper"? If the worst you can say about a camera (the X100) is that you enjoyed using it and it was convenient to use, I'm not sure why you would dismiss it...
Love the Halsman/Dali one !
Docmartin: No doubt, the EM-1 is a great camera! However, for those (like me) who want to continue working with the gorgeous FT Pro lenses, the EM-1 will still no replacement for the outdated E-5. I truly believe that FT lenses cannot be used on ANY MFT body without serious IQ loss until a better adapter than the current MMF2/3 is available. The material/build-quality of the MMF3 will for sure cause misalignment, flex and movement. Just have a look at Roger Cicala's findings and their discussion here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3553373
I don't know - I'd put the 50mm macro on the MMF-3 ahead of any mFT lens I own for IQ. It is hardly just 'good'.
Then again, you should be able to adjust to your heart's content with the ability to set front/rear adjustments on every one of the PDAF sensors, per lens, if you have issues with the adapter... I'd be surprised if the adapter variation is any worse than PDAF variation on a dSLR.