LightShow wrote:
Which explains the GXR's M module.
Ricoh doesn't make lenses - and bought Pentax in part because they lacked an 'in' on interchangeable lens systems.
Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji, Sony, Samsung - all are developing and introducing new lenses they'd like to sell you along with their compact bodies. They don't have a good reason to cater to legacy concerns - and they certainly don't have a good reason to encourage sales of, say, M-mount glass made by competitors. If you'd like to give them your money to use legacy glass, they'll gladly take it: but they're in the business of selling you their own products.
douglasf13 wrote:
Joakim has already posted quite a bit about how there really isn't anything special in the M9's sensor developed for rangefinder lenses. Remove the AA filter and use software correction and you're set.
This stands starkly in contrast to what Leica and Fuji have stated regarding their sensor design (Fuji in its X100 design - fitting a compact lens so close to a APS-C sensor required them to design the microlenses to suit the lens proximity). Digital sensors don't accept light from all angles as film does.
Given the color shift and softness on the NEX-7, I'm inclined to believe Fuji and Leica.
All that I know is, if this camera had a 135 sensor, I'd buy it tomorrow. With a m4/3 sensor, I'm not even considering it.
You're tied into the concept of 24x36mm (and presumably the lenses) - so you're not the target market. There will always be the option of full-frame pro cameras from Canikonsony, and maybe Pentax. Or Leica.
I've shot APS-C to 4x5 over the years, my favorite will always be 6x6. I don't particularly care what format my gear takes, so long as it works and prints well.
miloz wrote:
This stands starkly in contrast to what Leica and Fuji have stated regarding their sensor design (Fuji in its X100 design - fitting a compact lens so close to a APS-C sensor required them to design the microlenses to suit the lens proximity). Digital sensors don't accept light from all angles as film does.
Given the color shift and softness on the NEX-7, I'm inclined to believe Fuji and Leica.
You're tied into the concept of 24x36mm (and presumably the lenses) - so you're not the target market. There will always be the option of full-frame pro cameras from Canikonsony, and maybe Pentax. Or Leica.
I've shot APS-C to 4x5 over the years, my favorite will always be 6x6. I don't particularly care what format my gear takes, so long as it works and prints well....Show more →
It's mostly marketing. Here is Joakim's post about the M9's sensor: link
The NEX-7 does have issues, but it is most likely the sensor filters. Granted, the much smaller pixel size may play a role, too.
I'm not tied into the concept of 24x36 at all. In fact, I've most recently being arguing the virtues of aps-c. I even sold my A900 for NEX gear! However, for me, it's about the largest sensor that that can be used in a relatively small body, and I'm not sure why some of the manufacturers think that 135 sensors should only go in large camera bodies. This new OM-D looks like not much more than what the Panasonic GH cameras have been offering for a few years, so it's not all that exciting, to me.
p.s. 6x6 is my favorite format, too, and I also wish that someone would make a full size 6x6 digital sensor to use on my Hasselblads.
douglasf13 wrote:
p.s. 6x6 is my favorite format, too, and I also wish that someone would make a full size 6x6 digital sensor to use on my Hasselblads.
+1e37 (caveat: Rollei)! But affordable, i.e. less than 10k Euro. Drop the resolution until that price is realistic and I am happy. Note: it must have either live view or HDMI out, or at the very very least a high-res screen capable of decisively showing whether a taken shot had the focus in the right place!
carstenw wrote:
+1e37 (caveat: Rollei)! But affordable, i.e. less than 10k Euro. Drop the resolution until that price is realistic and I am happy. Note: it must have either live view or HDMI out, or at the very very least a high-res screen capable of decisively showing whether a taken shot had the focus in the right place!
douglasf13 wrote:
It's mostly marketing. Here is Joakim's post about the M9's sensor: link
The NEX-7 does have issues, but it is most likely the sensor filters. Granted, the much smaller pixel size may play a role, too.
Er, I don't see anywhere that that refutes Leica or Fuji's engineering claims.
What I do see, though: "I do however doubt that that ANY FF Bayer-sensor can make full use of the "harder" symmetrical wide-angle large-aperture M lenses. So if you want picture quality, and not just compactness and the right "brand" - choose a retrofocal WA on a FF dslr in stead. This is a new lens-construction constriction that the lens constructors have to learn to cope with."
That would seem to point to why we're not seeing mirrorless 24x36 bodies - everything that went into making the M9 work with, say, a 24 Summilux is very expensive and difficult to pull off. APS-C and m43 allow for more compact lens designs while dealing with the problems of sensor-lens proximity.
However, for me, it's about the largest sensor that that can be used in a relatively small body, and I'm not sure why some of the manufacturers think that 135 sensors should only go in large camera bodies.
This is why I'm inclined to believe Leica and Fuji, as well as chalking it up to everything that comes with a digital sensor. The M8 and M9 are appreciably larger than a film M, and they are the smallest 24x36 bodies available.
If someone were capable of producing an affordable mirrorless system that's the size of a u4/3 camera, why haven't they (I'm assuming it would have a new mount so that they could sell you lenses)? Seems to me that would be a market leader.
No one has even offered up a fixed-lens design (which can be made more compact).
That adds up to "this is not feasible at a reasonable price point right now, and probably not for the foreseeable future."
Ι have to admit that the format (I'm talking about shape not size) is another thing putting me off 4:3 and pretty much every p&s other than the LX3/LX5
4:3 just doesnt work for what I shoot ie in landscape that extra bit on the top and bottom usually adds nothing but empty sky and some more dirt and I'd gladly trade it for some extra horizon on the sides. Same for street, usually more sky and somebody's crotch
So I tend to crop everything back to 3:2, which means that the 28mm lens I though I bought is suddenly converted to something like a 35mm lens...
Annoying
Anyway that's probably just me, too set in my ways... changing formats feels like reinventing the wheel a little bit in terms of composition, I prefer to avoid it.
That's a good point, Spyro. For me it works the opposite, I prefer my landscapes to be 4x5 aspect ratio and I find 3x2 particularly useless for any sort of portrait orientation shot. For landscapes if I need a wider aspect I might go to 5x7. Whether it is 4x5 or 5x7 it turns out 4x3 is a better starting point than 3x2 and so I find the "penalty" of m43 2x compared to APS-C 1.6x to be diminished because I'm always cropping the APS-C by fair a bit. In your case of course it makes the m43 "penalty" even worse.
The GH2 uniquely provides the best of both worlds with its selectable aspect ratio, but I don't expect the OM-D to use that oversized sensor, they'll probably end up with the fixed 4:3 aspect 16MP sensor from the G3/GX1.
Anyway - really good point on preferred aspect ratio - it can make nearly as large a difference as the 2x vs 1.5x crop factor itself.
3:2 has always seemed to be a compromise ratio, an odd tweener (which, really, it is - it was a technological accident). Not a real panoramic, but too panoramic for verticals (3:2 vertical looks very odd to me).
kwalsh wrote:
The GH2 uniquely provides the best of both worlds with its selectable aspect ratio, but I don't expect the OM-D to use that oversized sensor, they'll probably end up with the fixed 4:3 aspect 16MP sensor from the G3/GX1.
Ken
This is where a High rez FF sensor could bridge the gaps, select the size and ratio you choose for the lens you mount,
the problem is you'd need a 40MP+ FF sensor to get a decent 4/3 resolution of 12MP. (which is evidence to me that it won't be FF , but a 17MP APS-C sensor can.) (24MP APS-C = 17mp 4/3)
miloz wrote:
3:2 has always seemed to be a compromise ratio, an odd tweener (which, really, it is - it was a technological accident). Not a real panoramic, but too panoramic for verticals (3:2 vertical looks very odd to me).
miloz wrote:
Er, I don't see anywhere that that refutes Leica or Fuji's engineering claims.
Joakim is saying that, not only is the IR filter not especially thin, but the M9's sensor, despite Leica's claimed edge improvements, still has worse angle-dependent efficiency than more modern sensors (the m9's sensor is basically an 8 year old design.)
miloz wrote:
Er, I don't see anywhere that that refutes Leica or Fuji's engineering claims.
What I do see, though: "I do however doubt that that ANY FF Bayer-sensor can make full use of the "harder" symmetrical wide-angle large-aperture M lenses. So if you want picture quality, and not just compactness and the right "brand" - choose a retrofocal WA on a FF dslr in stead. This is a new lens-construction constriction that the lens constructors have to learn to cope with."
That would seem to point to why we're not seeing mirrorless 24x36 bodies - everything that went into making the M9 work with, say, a 24 Summilux is very expensive and difficult to pull off. APS-C and m43 allow for more compact lens designs while dealing with the problems of sensor-lens proximity.
This is why I'm inclined to believe Leica and Fuji, as well as chalking it up to everything that comes with a digital sensor. The M8 and M9 are appreciably larger than a film M, and they are the smallest 24x36 bodies available.
If someone were capable of producing an affordable mirrorless system that's the size of a u4/3 camera, why haven't they (I'm assuming it would have a new mount so that they could sell you lenses)? Seems to me that would be a market leader.
No one has even offered up a fixed-lens design (which can be made more compact).
That adds up to "this is not feasible at a reasonable price point right now, and probably not for the foreseeable future."...Show more →
miloz stop clouding the debate with facts
The challenge of making an affordable, compact FF mirrorless does seem very high.
Was a rough estimate based on the table.
NEX 7
23.5 x 15.6 mm @ 24MP
Oly E-PM1
17.3 x 13.0 mm ~14.7MP but that's not the point, it's that there is enough pixels in the 24MP APS-C sensor that you would have enough usable resolution when using m4/3 glass.
Personally, I couldn't care less about MP count. I want good pixels first and foremost. For example, I'd be absolutely thrilled if Sony would put the 5N sensor in the NEX7.
miloz wrote:
Er, I don't see anywhere that that refutes Leica or Fuji's engineering claims.
What I do see, though: "I do however doubt that that ANY FF Bayer-sensor can make full use of the "harder" symmetrical wide-angle large-aperture M lenses. So if you want picture quality, and not just compactness and the right "brand" - choose a retrofocal WA on a FF dslr in stead. This is a new lens-construction constriction that the lens constructors have to learn to cope with."
That would seem to point to why we're not seeing mirrorless 24x36 bodies - everything that went into making the M9 work with, say, a 24 Summilux is very expensive and difficult to pull off. APS-C and m43 allow for more compact lens designs while dealing with the problems of sensor-lens proximity.
This is why I'm inclined to believe Leica and Fuji, as well as chalking it up to everything that comes with a digital sensor. The M8 and M9 are appreciably larger than a film M, and they are the smallest 24x36 bodies available.
If someone were capable of producing an affordable mirrorless system that's the size of a u4/3 camera, why haven't they (I'm assuming it would have a new mount so that they could sell you lenses)? Seems to me that would be a market leader.
No one has even offered up a fixed-lens design (which can be made more compact).
That adds up to "this is not feasible at a reasonable price point right now, and probably not for the foreseeable future."...Show more →
I forgot to respond to the second half of this. I never said that a 135 sensor OM-D had to be mirrorless. What many of us are talking about is simply small DSLRs. There's not a doubt in my mind that 135 sensors can't go in smaller cameras, whether they be mirrorless or small dslr, but I agree that the question is price. Sony is rumored to be bringing some kind of small hybrid mount, 135 camera, so we'll see.
The bottom line to, to me, is that Olympus is using emotional branding to bring out what is essentially their version of a GH2, which isn't all that exciting to me. I'm surprised it took them this long.
miloz wrote:
If someone were capable of producing an affordable mirrorless system that's the size of a u4/3 camera, why haven't they (I'm assuming it would have a new mount so that they could sell you lenses)? Seems to me that would be a market leader.
No one has even offered up a fixed-lens design (which can be made more compact).
That adds up to "this is not feasible at a reasonable price point right now, and probably not for the foreseeable future."
Pixel Perfect wrote:
miloz stop clouding the debate with facts
The challenge of making an affordable, compact FF mirrorless does seem very high.
That's a huge leap. "Just because they don't make it means they can't make it."
It's also a load of rubbish.
They can make small compact mirrorless bodies with APS-c sensors at very reasonable prices -- note the NEX-5N. It's not a huge leap to put a bigger sensor in the body. Even if it costs $1000 more to put a FF sensor (more than I think it would cost, IMHO) in a 5N-like body, what makes you think that $1599 isn't a reasonable price for such a body that wouldn't sell at that price? Or even $1999 for NEX-7 like body with a FF sensor? Still, by a large margin, the lowest cost FF camera on the market (Sony a850 discontinued, IIRC -- and it should be cheaper to produce than the a850 since there is no mirror box and pentaprism).
The challenge here is making big, fairly-conservative companies consider this. It may not fit into a pre-written "strategy" and therefore might take them well over a year to even consider adding to their strategy. They might consider such a camera might eat into their FF DSLR sales (Canon/Nikon) and don't want to cannibalize their own sales. But Pentax or Olympus? They have no such worries. A full frame OM-D wouldn't cannibalize existing Olympus sales, it would open up a new market for them, give them a real innovative flagship product, get all kinds of publicity, and build sales. A m43 OM-D will cannibalize existing m43 sales, and its market essentially will not extend much further than existing m43 owners. In my view, Olympus will be missing an opportunity with a m43, variation on the Pen, OM-D. That does leave Pentax to do it (and Fuji and Sony). Mark my words. The company that does a FF compact mirrorless will reap significant rewards.
, but a 17MP APS-C sensor can.) (24MP APS-C = 17mp 4/3)