rscheffler wrote:
They get away with it by not having to:
1) design tele-centric lenses (at least prior to digital)
2) incorporate AF drive
3) incorporate auto aperture
What you see with a rangefinder lens is generally the bare minimum needed to hold the elements in place, include a focusing helicoid and direct mechanical aperture connection. If you look at the block diagram for the Zeiss 24 f/1.8 for NEX, you'll see that the optics are housed in a much fatter than necessary housing in order to accommodate AF, etc. It's the same for the Panasonic pancake m4/3 lenses. They're very short, but still very fat....Show more →
Panasonic's new X lenses have AF and auto aperture and are very small. You gotta love technology.
carstenw wrote:
Ah, missed the word fast. Then I agree (except that you appear to be generally discussing the new Zeiss 24/1.8, so f/1.8 should presumably be the starting point). Although I would like to see what the 24/1.4 ASPH can do wide open before being final.
The MTF charts for the 24 Lux ASPH show that it has very low contrast at all apertures at f/1.4. I can't say much about its rendering style (I'm not familiar with it), but it's clear that raw optical performance wasn't at the top of their list.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Wow a pancake zoom, incredible. Makes me want to pick up a GF-1 again, almost.
Why not just go for a compact P&S? I mean, how good can the image quality be from a pancake zoom?
denoir wrote:
Why not just go for a compact P&S? I mean, how good can the image quality be from a pancake zoom?
Agree, not sure why people are suddenly all about "small".
I thought a mirrorless main advantage is to mount good glass on something
SMALLER than a regular DSLR.
Now the 4/3 crowd for example is loud about "big" NEX lenses. I guess
they have nothing else, what can you say about the 2x crop system anyway?
So it's great because it's small. Haven't we had tons of really small
cameras for last 15 years? Really confusing...
But honestly, m4/3 now has a small sensor and small lenses.
Do you really think that combination makes great image quality?
snowboarder wrote:
Agree, not sure why people are suddenly all about "small".
I thought a mirrorless main advantage is to mount good glass on something
SMALLER than a regular DSLR.
Now the 4/3 crowd for example is loud about "big" NEX lenses. I guess
they have nothing else, what can you say about the 2x crop system anyway?
So it's great because it's small. Haven't we had tons of really small
cameras for last 15 years? Really confusing...
But honestly, m4/3 now has a small sensor and small lenses.
Do you really think that combination makes great image quality?
the difference in image quality between the best p&s and worst µ4/3 camera lens combo is MUCH bigger than the difference in image quality between the worst µ4/3 camera lens combo and the newest FF cameras with a pro zoom. honestly, have you guys ever shot a p&s? the differences between the lx-5, s95, and XZ-1 and µ4/3 are huge.
I beg to differ, sebboh. It dpends what you are shooting and what the conditions are. Under certain conditions (lots of DOF, no excessive DR or contrast, enough light), a "better" P&S can do quite well indeed. But of course, when things get tougher, it is quite another story...
maybe m4/3 is better than P&S. But it's also much worse than
the best quality I can get today (from any system)
A good new NEX sensor + great glass is bascially the best image quality
I can get today. Without talking a 5kg camera and lens combination.
When I travel to Patagonia or Cambodia, guess which system I will choose...
sebboh wrote:
the difference in image quality between the best p&s and worst µ4/3 camera lens combo is MUCH bigger than the difference in image quality between the worst µ4/3 camera lens combo and the newest FF cameras with a pro zoom. honestly, have you guys ever shot a p&s? the differences between the lx-5, s95, and XZ-1 and µ4/3 are huge.
I think you underestimate how good modern P&S cameras are today, and I think you are overestimating the quality of m4/3.
Here are two examples, with the same source images (DPR test scene) shot with a G12, GF3, 5DII and 645D.
From the metadata it seems like the GF3 used a 50mm prime, which is certain to be much better than the pancake zoom. And still. I'd put the image quality in this case closer to the G12 than to the 5DII.
Having said that, it's like Philippe says - it's when the going gets tough that the P&S will break down (high iso, high DR etc) and the m4/3 will come closer to the larger sensors.
philber wrote:
I beg to differ, sebboh. It dpends what you are shooting and what the conditions are. Under certain conditions (lots of DOF, no excessive DR or contrast, enough light), a "better" P&S can do quite well indeed. But of course, when things get tougher, it is quite another story...
indeed, in that situation many can't tell the difference between a p&s and a digital medium format camera (unless told those were the cameras so they look for the telltale signs) as our friend at luminous landscapes showed... it is how the cameras handle tough dynamic range and light situations, post processing, and narrow dof applications where the differences in format sizes show up. in these situations the difference between a canon 5dII and an olympus e-p2 is much smaller than the difference between a canon s95 and an olympus e-p2.
snowboarder wrote:
maybe m4/3 is better than P&S. But it's also much worse than
the best quality I can get today (from any system)
A good new NEX sensor + great glass is bascially the best image quality
I can get today. Without talking a 5kg camera and lens combination.
When I travel to Patagonia or Cambodia, guess which system I will choose...
i won't disagree with you. i shoot a NEX with manual focus glass rather than µ4/3 myself. i just think people on this forum get a little crazy disparaging 4/3. the difference between 4/3 and aps-c is tiny compared to the difference between FF and aps-c and even tinier compared to the difference between p&s and 4/3 (as one could gather from looking at sensor sizes). the idea that there is not a very noticeable difference between µ4/3 and p&s cameras is ridiculous (even with the kit lenses). side note: µ4/3 appears to make better kit lenses than any other camera companies. sorry about the diatribe.
denoir wrote:
I think you underestimate how good modern P&S cameras are today, and I think you are overestimating the quality of m4/3.
Here are two examples, with the same source images (DPR test scene) shot with a G12, GF3, 5DII and 645D.
From the metadata it seems like the GF3 used a 50mm prime, which is certain to be much better than the pancake zoom. And still. I'd put the image quality in this case closer to the G12 than to the 5DII.
Having said that, it's like Philippe says - it's when the going gets tough that the P&S will break down (high iso, high DR etc) and the m4/3 will come closer to the larger sensors. ...Show more →
first, a studio shot is pretty worthless for showing the differences between formats. second, tell me this isn't a comparison that uses panasonic jpegs (raw comparisons at dpr show the 12mp panasonic cameras match 16mp canon cameras for resolution which is not at all evident here)? in any event, having actually used a much older 4/3 camera (olympus e520) and an a canon s90, i can tell you that difference was not even close.
I just happen to like the gf1 a Lot since it's so far been the best interface execution of a rangefinder I used today. Too bad it had a crappy clip on evf with terrible resolution.
denoir wrote:
I think you underestimate how good modern P&S cameras are today, and I think you are overestimating the quality of m4/3.
Curious that you chose the GF3, not exactly the standard bearer of MFT image quality, and left the NEX out of this comparison. To my eyes, looking at the dpreview image, none of these cameras touch the FF output (obviously) but the G3 does much better than the GF3.
itai195 wrote:
Curious that you chose the GF3, not exactly the standard bearer of MFT image quality, and left the NEX out of this comparison. To my eyes, looking at the dpreview image, none of these cameras touch the FF output (obviously) but the G3 does much better than the GF3.
I picked the GF3 because we were talking about compact cameras.
Also, regarding the NEX-7. It looks like a wonderful camera, and I've preordered one for now. However I'm still concerned about the lack of native lenses. I'm not interested in using manual focus lenses with a camera like this, and Sony still doesn't offer any good wide angle zoom or prime lenses. I'm not convinced that any of the existing lenses are up to the task of fully utilizing the 24MP sensor, either.
sebboh wrote:
intriguing, that looks nothing like what i've gotten and seen from gf1 raws – as in noticeably lacking detail in comparison to the gf1 raws.
Hmm..they look close to me, the GF3 looking a bit better:
