Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       5       6       end
  

Archive 2013 · Re-thinking MFT
  
 
Sagar
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Re-thinking MFT


This is what happened with me. Apart from point I mentioned earlier, I just couldn't feel comfortable with ergonomics and tactile feel of mirrorless cameras (and I did try every mirrorless brand) Ultimately settled on Pentax now. Smallish K5 IIs and limiteds. My kit is as small as any mirrorless system (except probably little bit more weight)

If you are primarly prime shooter you may be better off with smallish DSLR from any brand

bobbytan wrote:
This is a strong argument if you don't really need the smallest/lightest system. The new T5i or SL1 could be good options if you already own some EF-S lenses. You would be saving some weight but still have the heft and feel of a regular DSLR.





Apr 23, 2013 at 07:10 PM
itai195
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Re-thinking MFT


bobbytan wrote:
Not good if the sensor is an older one than the GH3 ... because the GH3 sensor is "only" as good as the OM-D sensor.

http://m43blog.com/tag/panasonic-g7/



What would be the point of a G7 with worse IQ than the OM-D? Panny already has that in the G5, I'd be surprised if they did it again.

Regarding the small DSLR route it's an interesting option but keep in mind that there are pros and cons either way. It's been years since I've looked closely at Canon's EF-S lens lineup, is it anywhere near as extensive as m4/3 (or even Fuji)? I know Nikon's DX lineup isn't.



Apr 23, 2013 at 07:38 PM
wolfloid
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Re-thinking MFT


K5 is smaller than GH3 or equal to x-Pro 1 with all limiteds primes are smaller than their near equivalent m43 or fuji lenses. In addition you get much better body with one of the best OVF and fast AF.

I think this needs to be put to rest at once, since it is clearly not true. The K5 is much bigger than all mirrorless cameras. It is just as bulky and brick-like as all DSLRs.

K5 II - 131x97 plus a far greater depth because of the mirror flap. 750 g!!!

Fuji x-pro 1 - 139x82 lower and slimmer - only 450 g. And this is the biggest.

Fuji XE-1 - 129 x 75 - much smaller in every dimension and only half the weight - 350 g.

Olympus OMD - 122x89 much smaller in all dimensions and almost half the weight - 425 g.

The NEX cameras are all smaller still.

Given the increased depth of the K 5 you are comparing a bulky and heavy camera to others with approximately half the bulk and half the weight. In other words a 100% larger camera.



Apr 23, 2013 at 09:59 PM
ISO1600
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Re-thinking MFT


Jman13 wrote:
In what way do you find the OM-D lagging? Aside from continuous AF (where it's admittedly not great), the single point AF and such is faster than any DSLR I've ever owned in dim light and on par in good light.

It's got a shutter lag of 0.056 seconds too, which isn't exactly slow.

Unless I've misread your comment, in which case disregard (it sounds to me like you are saying you found the OM-D slow, so you're really glad you haven't even looked at the Fujis).


it was a completely unpredictable occurence, but it wasn't uncommon for me to have to press buttons more than once to get the desired effect, or a response at all.
The one-shot AF on static subjects was outstanding.
Moving subjects, don't bother.
Digging through the menus, or even using the SCP, at times, was atrocious- this is in large part, due to the super cramped controls of the camera.



Apr 23, 2013 at 10:52 PM
mawz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Re-thinking MFT


wolfloid wrote:
I think this needs to be put to rest at once, since it is clearly not true. The K5 is much bigger than all mirrorless cameras. It is just as bulky and brick-like as all DSLRs.

K5 II - 131x97 plus a far greater depth because of the mirror flap. 750 g!!!

Fuji x-pro 1 - 139x82 lower and slimmer - only 450 g. And this is the biggest.

Fuji XE-1 - 129 x 75 - much smaller in every dimension and only half the weight - 350 g.

Olympus OMD - 122x89 much smaller in all dimensions and almost half the weight -
...Show more

The GH3 is comparatively huge though, it's by far the largest Mirrorless body and comparable to midsize APS-C DSLR's and SLT's. 133x93x82mm and 550gm. The K-5's 5mm taller and both less wide and less deep (by 2mm and 9mm respectively), Still 200gm heavier, but that's mostly in the prism. Comparing a K-5 II with DA Limiteds and a GH3 with primes will produce comparable size packages (the K-5 II may be less deep, but the register is still longer, so the lens will stick out more. This is less of a difference than you might think as the GH3 is deeper behind the sensor due to the flip/twist LCD setup which eats around half the GH3's register advantage).

you can relatively easily put together a DSLR package that's smaller than a GH3. Pentax K-x with DA Limiteds, Oly E-620 or E-4x0 with the 25mm pancake, Canon SL1 with the 40mm pancake.



Apr 23, 2013 at 11:33 PM
mawz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Re-thinking MFT


ISO1600 wrote:
it was a completely unpredictable occurence, but it wasn't uncommon for me to have to press buttons more than once to get the desired effect, or a response at all.
The one-shot AF on static subjects was outstanding.
Moving subjects, don't bother.
Digging through the menus, or even using the SCP, at times, was atrocious- this is in large part, due to the super cramped controls of the camera.


The funny thing about the cramped controls is that they are inherited from the FF inspiration for the OM-D. The OM4T had controls that were even more cramped than the OM-D (I found the OM4T too cramped, the OM-D is much more ergonomic).



Apr 23, 2013 at 11:39 PM
carstenw
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Re-thinking MFT


I loved both my old OM-2n and my OM-4. The E-M5 feels cramped to me.


Apr 23, 2013 at 11:40 PM
mawz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · Re-thinking MFT


carstenw wrote:
I loved both my old OM-2n and my OM-4. The E-M5 feels cramped to me.


The E-M5 is a little cramped for me (particularly the play & Fn1 buttons), but I found the OM4T distinctly worse. A lot of that was control layout rather than size, the spot metering buttons in particular were just awkwardly placed. But I didn't much like the OM1 either (I found all the OM's to feel crude in comparison to the Nikon FM2/FE2/FA bodies)



Apr 23, 2013 at 11:45 PM
ISO1600
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · Re-thinking MFT


The OM1 and OM2 are works of art. Pure masterpieces. The OMD may be a similar size with design inspiration, but that is where the similarities stop.
I have never used an OM3/4



Apr 24, 2013 at 12:44 AM
mawz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · Re-thinking MFT


ISO1600 wrote:
The OM1 and OM2 are works of art. Pure masterpieces. The OMD may be a similar size with design inspiration, but that is where the similarities stop.
I have never used an OM3/4


I'd have to disagree. My experience with the OM system was the bodies are superb on paper, somewhat crude in reality when compared to similar cameras from Nikon, Canon or Minolta (Pentax is another maker guilty of this, aside from the LX the Pentax K mount bodies tend to be either weird or crude in comparison). They certainly were good cameras, and well built, but they simply were not as smooth or coherently designed as a Nikon FM2 or F2. The OM1 felt like it was simply a Nikkormat FTn shrunk in size and with a better viewfinder (of course Olympus did heavily borrow from the Nikkormat's ergonomic design, most notably the shutter speed ring which was directly cloned from the Nikkormats)

The OM-D may lack the solid build of the original OM's, but there's a level of design coherence and smooth operation which was lacking on the OM bodies.



Apr 24, 2013 at 12:50 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



bobbytan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · Re-thinking MFT


The G6 inherits the GH2 sensor without the multi-aspect feature? That's not good ... unless you are more into video than stills.

http://www.43rumors.com/category/news/
















Apr 24, 2013 at 03:22 AM
itai195
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · Re-thinking MFT


Yeah that's lame.


Apr 24, 2013 at 03:39 AM
Sagar
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · Re-thinking MFT


That was my point. If you have limited lens requirements (aka prime trinities etc), you can build comparable size (slightly larger and heavier) kit with an APSC DSLR.

I used to use Domke 5FX-B for m4/3 and Fuji 3 lens kit, the same bag still can take APSC DSLR and 3 primes. (K5/30 or even D5/3xxx/SL1 with primes). Only difference is marginal increasein weight/size against which I get a fully functional DSLR.

But if you are looking for pro zoom lenses like 24-70/70-200 etc. then its a different ballgame all-together

mawz wrote:
The GH3 is comparatively huge though, it's by far the largest Mirrorless body and comparable to midsize APS-C DSLR's and SLT's. 133x93x82mm and 550gm. The K-5's 5mm taller and both less wide and less deep (by 2mm and 9mm respectively), Still 200gm heavier, but that's mostly in the prism. Comparing a K-5 II with DA Limiteds and a GH3 with primes will produce comparable size packages (the K-5 II may be less deep, but the register is still longer, so the lens will stick out more. This is less of a difference than you might think as the GH3 is
...Show more



Apr 24, 2013 at 04:13 AM
bobbytan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · Re-thinking MFT


If you are referring to Canon "trinity" primes such as the 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2 ... these are neither compact nor lightweight by any stretch of the imagination ... compared to the likes of MFT "trinity" lenses like the 12/2, 17/1.8, 25/1.4 and 45/1.8.

Sagar wrote:
That was my point. If you have limited lens requirements (aka prime trinities etc), you can build comparable size (slightly larger and heavier) kit with an APSC DSLR.





Apr 24, 2013 at 04:58 AM
bobbytan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · Re-thinking MFT


I agree. The OM-D buttons are rather cramped compared to the original/earlier OM Series.

carstenw wrote:
I loved both my old OM-2n and my OM-4. The E-M5 feels cramped to me.




Apr 24, 2013 at 05:02 AM
philip_pj
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · Re-thinking MFT


'If you are referring to Canon "trinity" primes such as the 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2'
Coulda swore these were special purpose full frame lenses.

Sagar refers quite clearly to 'with an APSC DSLR' and 'K5II'. The differences of DOF is a pretty big issue here also and for eq. of this you won't need as fast lens speed on the larger format (APS-C vs MFT).

Oh, and for impartial readers the weight of the limited Pentax lenses are:

21/3.2: 140 grams; 31/1.8 (full frame ready!): 345 grams; 43/1.9 (full frame ready!: 155 grams; and 70/2.4: 130 grams...

Not many users would consider a camera body and three lenses (say 21, 43 and 70) to be heavy at a combined 1165 grams, or 2.57 pounds. Very nice camera, lovely lenses too. Maximum body/lens carry weight of less than a litre of milk. Body is 740 grams ready to roll.



Apr 24, 2013 at 05:50 AM
carstenw
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · Re-thinking MFT


Adam, I don't understand the "crude" comments. I have an OM-1 and an FM2, and the Nikon feels chunkier and everything clicks in a heavier way. Other than that, there is no quality difference in the feel, except maybe for the plastic on/off lever of the OM-1 (but then the plastic ring around the rewind knob on the FM2 feels similarly cheap). The Olympus feels lighter, but this doesn't necessarily imply crude.

I do know that the Olympus cameras and lenses don't have the same quality internal components, using more plastic and thinner metal, but again, that is a design choice (for lighter weight and cheaper cost) which doesn't reflect in the feel of the externals.



Apr 24, 2013 at 07:03 AM
aleksanderpolo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · Re-thinking MFT


OMD + 14/2.5 + 20/1.7 + 45/1.8 = 430g+55g+99g+116g=700g, by the way.


Apr 24, 2013 at 07:19 AM
Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · Re-thinking MFT


justruss wrote:
Yakim, why the move away from 7d in the first place? You seem to want to go mirrorless, but your main concern is size-- that is, getting something bigger rather than smaller.

Why not just get a small DSLR with a newish sensor. Canon. Save yourself the trouble.


My main concern is weight of camera and lenses, not size. My ideal system has DSLR size and MILC weight. As I can not have this, I'm looking for the bigger MILC cameras.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Apr 24, 2013 at 08:35 AM
Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · Re-thinking MFT


mawz wrote:
The 7D has one of the better APS-C SLR's, but it's significantly smaller and dimmer than the 5D's already mediocre (by FF standards) OVF. The 7D has the equivalent of a 0.63x magnification FF finder, FAR smaller than the 5D's 0.72x and a lot closer to the 40D's 0.59x equivalent than to the 5D's finder (all finders are measured with a 50mm lens, so you need to multiply the magnification by the inverse crop factor to find the 35mm-equivalent magnification in order to get a comparable idea of the size). Note by calling the 5D's finder mediocre, I'm not referring
...Show more

Adam, I tried both side by side. I know what I saw.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Apr 24, 2013 at 08:39 AM
1       2      
3
       4       5       6       end




FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       5       6       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password