sebboh wrote:
sweet! did you ever get a better adapter for the 45?
Yeah, got another adapter that is somewhat better. It is far from a manual focus native solution, but far better than my first iteration. Looking forward to trying the new 35/1.2 from CV, hope they have not ruined the wide open performance
carstenw wrote:
Yes, I was trying to fend off the inevitable "it doesn't make sense to compare those two cameras" comments. For me it does, because I am considering my compact kit strategy, and don't yet know what I want. I am leaning towards an E-P3 with 20/1.7, with the possibility of adding a 24/1.8 and 45/2.8 later.
do you mean 25/1.4? µ4/3 doesn't have a 24/1.8.
as far as ~40ish lenses on the NEX go another good option that is good performer and quite small would be the 40mm cron/rokkor 40mm f/2. both are the same optically though the leica has a different filter thread size i believe.
philber wrote:
My anticipated kit with NEX 7 would be: Zeiss 24, Contax g 45 Voigtllander 75. Possible additions, if they work well: Contax G 21 and G 28, also Sony G zoom.
Mine will probably be similar: Zeiss 24, Contax G 45, Contax G 90, and possibly CV 15 (if it does better on the NEX-7 than it did on the NEX-5). Might hold on to the Sony 18-55 E just for the hell of it for convenience with video and low-value shooting.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Mine will probably be similar: Zeiss 24, Contax G 45, Contax G 90, and possibly CV 15 (if it does better on the NEX-7 than it did on the NEX-5). Might hold on to the Sony 18-55 E just for the hell of it for convenience with video and low-value shooting.
I'll go for sony 16/2.8, CV 35/1.2, contax g 90 or possibly a CV 75.
carstenw wrote:
Yes, I was trying to fend off the inevitable "it doesn't make sense to compare those two cameras" comments. For me it does, because I am considering my compact kit strategy, and don't yet know what I want. I am leaning towards an E-P3 with 20/1.7, with the possibility of adding a 24/1.8 and 45/2.8 later.
Um.. why? Don't you have an M8 and a collection of first rate M lenses? You're 10 megapixels from the M8 will be of substantially better quality than the 12 of the E-P3.
I'm conflicted over the G 45mm F2 and the CV 40mm F1.4. I really like how compact and pancake the CV 40mm F1.4 is, I wonder how much thickness the adapter adds.
denoir wrote:
Um.. why? Don't you have an M8 and a collection of first rate M lenses? You're 10 megapixels from the M8 will be of substantially better quality than the 12 of the E-P3.
I wouldn't start with the kit of three, just the E-P3 and the 20/1.7. The M8 and 35/1.4 ASPH is significantly larger, and has terrible high ISO. The IQ at lower ISOs is great though… I am still undecided. When all these cameras are in the shops and easy to find, I will go in with an SD card and make some tests with all of them, including the M8. Another option would be to add the 35/2 IV or something similar, and use the M8. That would come closer to pocket size. That doesn't save me any money though.
carstenw wrote:
I wouldn't start with the kit of three, just the E-P3 and the 20/1.7. The M8 and 35/1.4 ASPH is significantly larger, and has terrible high ISO. The IQ at lower ISOs is great though… I am still undecided. When all these cameras are in the shops and easy to find, I will go in with an SD card and make some tests with all of them, including the M8. Another option would be to add the 35/2 IV or something similar, and use the M8. That would come closer to pocket size. That doesn't save me any money though.
M4/3 at high ISO isn't fantastic either. I wouldn't bet any money on noticeably better performance compared to the M8. And although the body is certainly smaller when you attach a lens it's not that small.
The X1 is smaller (thanks to the collapsible lens) but it's still not truly pocketable. It's too large to have in a trouser pocket. In a jacket pocket it takes up enough space to always remind you that you are carrying it. And with the possible exception of a NEX-C3 or E-P3 + Perar 35mm, the X1 is still the most compact large sensor system you can get. And if you are going to have to have some kind of bag, well, then an E-P3 + Lens or an M8 + Lens won't make much of a difference.
And the M mount lenses that you already have are in a completely different league than those that you are considering. The 20/1.7 is indeed a very nice lens, but in a different category.
If your 35 Lux ASPH is too large, why not use your 28 Cron instead? It's quite a bit smaller.
I could… I am not sure yet. I have to experiment a bit. I think the E-P3 will be better at high ISO than the M8, but I do have to verify it. Part of the fun is of course that I can use all my existing lenses on via adapters, which will be fun. How about a 32mm effective fisheye Or a 360mm f/2? Lots of fun.
I have thought of both X1 and X100. The Leica appeals more in some ways, due to its simplicity, but the f/2.8 and lack of an optical viewfinder give me pause. And at that price, I would prefer f/2 or better.The Fuji is quite neat, has f/2 and an optical viewfinder, and it would be an interesting experiment to have a fixed focal length camera. Quite different than my usual flexibility, and maybe enough to push my style in another direction? Will you bring the X1, if you come to Berlin on Oct. 8?
carstenw wrote:
I have thought of both X1 and X100. The Leica appeals more in some ways, due to its simplicity, but the f/2.8 and lack of an optical viewfinder give me pause. And at that price, I would prefer f/2 or better.The Fuji is quite neat, has f/2 and an optical viewfinder, and it would be an interesting experiment to have a fixed focal length camera. Quite different than my usual flexibility, and maybe enough to push my style in another direction? Will you bring the X1, if you come to Berlin on Oct. 8?
Sure, I can bring it. It's actually in Solms right now being repaired (battery hatch fell off) but I should have it back well before October.
Check out the X1, it actually has quite good high ISO performance for an ASP-C sensor. It's comparable to what you get from an M9 (which has rather poor high ISO performance for a FF sensor).
Having said that, I would hesitate to recommend the X1. The lens is great, the IQ is very good for it is, but it's really not very nice to use due to slow AF, cumbersome MF and a poor display. Plus it's still too big to have it on you without being reminded of it - unless you have really big jacket pockets and you usually carry around a brick or two in them
As for the X100, again, as innovative as it is, it's still too big. And if you have a real digital rangefinder, why not use it instead of a half imitation of one?
carstenw wrote:
I could… I am not sure yet. I have to experiment a bit. I think the E-P3 will be better at high ISO than the M8, but I do have to verify it. Part of the fun is of course that I can use all my existing lenses on via adapters, which will be fun. How about a 32mm effective fisheye Or a 360mm f/2? Lots of fun.
Meh... Use the crop function in Photoshop with your existing images and you'll see that it's nothing all that amazing. It isn't a change in focal length, but a crop. And if you have a high end camera in the first place chances are the software crop will still be of higher quality than what the cropped sensor can provide..
denoir wrote:
Sure, I can bring it. It's actually in Solms right now being repaired (battery hatch fell off) but I should have it back well before October.
Check out the X1, it actually has quite good high ISO performance for an ASP-C sensor. It's comparable to what you get from an M9 (which has rather poor high ISO performance for a FF sensor).
Having said that, I would hesitate to recommend the X1. The lens is great, the IQ is very good for it is, but it's really not very nice to use due to slow AF, cumbersome MF and a poor display. Plus it's still too big to have it on you without being reminded of it - unless you have really big jacket pockets and you usually carry around a brick or two in them
As for the X100, again, as innovative as it is, it's still too big. And if you have a real digital rangefinder, why not use it instead of a half imitation of one?
Meh... Use the crop function in Photoshop with your existing images and you'll see that it's nothing all that amazing. It isn't a change in focal length, but a crop. And if you have a high end camera in the first place chances are the software crop will still be of higher quality than what the cropped sensor can provide.. ...Show more →
I understand where you are coming from, and yes the x100 is bigger.. however having owned both, it's also a hell of a lot more durable, makes better images imo, and is much faster in use. I would recommend the x100 every time over the x1 having owned both.
I am thinking of replacing my gf1 with one of them, the nex7 is sure expensive and frankly, I don't really need the vf a lot of the time.. what I really want to do is check out some mf glass used - with focus check.. see how it goes. It seems the corners on wide lenses are better than the last gen, and 16mp is more than enough.. however I have no idea what 50mm to get, I'd prefer to keep the kit under a grand!
h00ligan wrote:
I understand where you are coming from, and yes the x100 is bigger.. however having owned both, it's also a hell of a lot more durable, makes better images imo, and is much faster in use. I would recommend the x100 every time over the x1 having owned both.
So would I if the choice was between the X1 and X100. the thing is though that Carsten already has an M8 and a large collection of top end M lenses. In that context an X1 would make more sense as it's smaller, even though the X100 is the better camera of the two. Getting an X100 won't bring him any advantage over what he already has (the M8).
