p.5 #1 · "Best" Mirrorless Camera with Viewfinder?
DTOB wrote:
One thing everyone is forgetting or is just oblivious to is that Chuck is a photographer and not a gear hound, unlike many in this sub-forum. He cares about imagery, not pseudo-scientific breakdowns.
Then Chuck is posting in the wrong place. This is a gear forum.
He probably also wouldn't be calling his thread ""Best" Mirrorless Camera with Viewfinder?" nor asking what he asked the way he asked it.
p.5 #4 · "Best" Mirrorless Camera with Viewfinder?
Bifurcator wrote:
The panny 7-14 isn't that good! Do some actual stress testing of it. It smears light points around the outer areas of the frame quite badly. It fringes out sometimes too. It's a fun cool lens but not really that great.
I've been using the lens for close to two years, so I've done plenty of stress testing with the lens. It's an outstanding lens. Name ONE 7mm lens that you can adapt that's better than it. Oh...wait, there aren't any. Also, I've found that the 7-14 is better than the Canon 17-40L, which while not the best ultra wide on earth, is still a very good lens. Is it going to beat the Zeiss 21 on full frame? Of course not, but it's far wider and cheaper.
I dunno the Panasonic 20mm, and the Leica 25mm - so no comment. However I guess the near perfect (on µ4/3) Yashica ML 21 (for $150 to $250) will match or beat them. And look cooler doing it too!
Umm...kay. So you haven't used these lenses but you're sure an adapted ultra-wide will beat them. It's also nearly three stops slower. The Leica 25/1.4 is the best overall normal lens I've ever used, and I've owned a LOT.
The Olympus 45mm gets it's ass kicked by a lot of other 45 and 50mm lenses.
Really? Name them. I haven't seen ONE that beats it.
Now, like I said, I didn't have the Zeiss Planars, which might give it a run for its money, but I'm doubting they'd destroy it. I also didn't test the Leica summilux or summicron, but they are WAY more expensive too.
I dunno the Leica 45mm macro or Olympus 75mm either but on the later I guess the FD 85/1.2 will blow it away - and a half!
I'd highly doubt it. The Oly 75 smashes the Nikon 85/1.4. It's also (from samples) much sharper wide open than the Rokinon 85/1.4, which is just as sharp as the Canon L. As good? Maybe...blow it away? Highly doubtful, except in maximum aperture.
Also for actual macros the Leica 45mm ?? Really? Are you sure? Does it do 1:1 ? Is it perfect at f/2.8? Is it less than $200? (What, no distance scale on a macro lens?)
Yes, it is 1:1. I agree that this is the area where you are likely to find much cheaper lenses that are similar in image quality to the 45 macro (I have the Oly 50mm f/3.5 that is just as good stopped down and quite close at f/3.5, and was $100). But AF + IS is hard to emulate, and yes, I use AF a lot on my macro, but I can see this as one area where it might make sense.
p.5 #5 · "Best" Mirrorless Camera with Viewfinder?
why a good photographer can't be a gear freak? Luka, for example, the guy from Leica forum, he's a great photographer and very picky on high-end equipment.
p.5 #6 · "Best" Mirrorless Camera with Viewfinder?
Any good photographer learns his craft/ tools (hopefully to the point he can then forget about all the technical crap as it becomes second nature to creating images!).
p.5 #7 · "Best" Mirrorless Camera with Viewfinder?
Photography like many pursuits, is both an art and a craft.
All the technical knowledge in the world isn't going to mean squat if your don't have an artistic eye for composition. Ansel Adams said something akin to a technically perfect photo of a boring subject gives you nothing more than a perfectly boring photo.
However, you can have an amazing eye for composition but if you don't know the technique, your not going to be able to fully realize that vision. You can't just throw a camera on a tripod and wildly spin the dials and see what happens, you've got to have some knowledge about what and how things work.
Thats really what I've always enjoyed so about photography, it appeals to both my geeky techie side as someone who loves computers, using tools, and mastering a craft or process and yet at the same time, it also lets me be creative and think outside the box.
p.5 #8 · "Best" Mirrorless Camera with Viewfinder?
Jman13 wrote:
I've been using the lens for close to two years, so I've done plenty of stress testing with the lens. It's an outstanding lens. Name ONE 7mm lens that you can adapt that's better than it. Oh...wait, there aren't any. Also, I've found that the 7-14 is better than the Canon 17-40L, which while not the best ultra wide on earth, is still a very good lens. Is it going to beat the Zeiss 21 on full frame? Of course not, but it's far wider and cheaper.
Umm...kay. So you haven't used these lenses but you're sure an adapted ultra-wide will beat them. It's also nearly three stops slower. The Leica 25/1.4 is the best overall normal lens I've ever used, and I've owned a LOT.
Really? Name them. I haven't seen ONE that beats it.
Now, like I said, I didn't have the Zeiss Planars, which might give it a run for its money, but I'm doubting they'd destroy it. I also didn't test the Leica summilux or summicron, but they are WAY more expensive too.
I'd highly doubt it. The Oly 75 smashes the Nikon 85/1.4. It's also (from samples) much sharper wide open than the Rokinon 85/1.4, which is just as sharp as the Canon L. As good? Maybe...blow it away? Highly doubtful, except in maximum aperture.
Yes, it is 1:1. I agree that this is the area where you are likely to find much cheaper lenses that are similar in image quality to the 45 macro (I have the Oly 50mm f/3.5 that is just as good stopped down and quite close at f/3.5, and was $100). But AF + IS is hard to emulate, and yes, I use AF a lot on my macro, but I can see this as one area where it might make sense. ...Show more →
Sounds like you're up for a "challenge". Like when I said "I guess..." and you interpret that as me saying "I'm sure...."
I have tested the Oly 45 against others - including the FD 50/1.4 and it get's it's ass handed to it in LPP charts from that one for one and in micro-contrast from several others. Dude, there are sooooooo many awesome 45/50/55/58mm lenses out there for under $100 it's just crazy! It would be a miracle if the one you like or the one I liked honestly happened to be "the best" or had the rendering style that appealed to most everyone. You certainly have to give me that there are matches for it out there which can be found for under $100. Also on the 85/1,2... Well, the 1.2 aperture is part of it. We can't discount that just because the Oly 75 doesn't do 1.2.
Anyway this whole off-shoot is only about just one of the seven reasons I gave for why people might want to adapt legacy glass. When you combine them and even consider some things I may have left out adapting makes really really good sense for very many people. And everyone's millage will vary.
p.5 #9 · "Best" Mirrorless Camera with Viewfinder?
HOLY HELL!
You guys are amazing. I have to give you all a HUGE thanks for your input here (even the bickering )!
To answer a few specific questions:
1) Price. Well, this would be a third camera really dedicated to personal family photography (which I take ver seriously and hold dear to my heart). With that said, I cant go crazy! I think I'd cap myself at $1500ish (and would like to be close to $1K).
2) I definitely want a viewfinder. I am obviously use to that of an SLR, but I have used rangefinders in the past (Leica M6s). I was impressed with the electric viewfinder of the V1, so I'm not ruling that out.
3) I would AF 99% of the time. I have no interest in manual focus. With that said, I only need the camera to focus once, not track moving subjects.
4) I have no interest in adapting lenses to fit my camera. So if I opt for micro 4/3, I'd be using micro 4/3 lenses...sony would be sony, etc.
5) Size of camera is kind of important. I never minded DSLRs until I started to lug them around for 12 hours. I was really happy with the overall size of the Nikon V1 (sorry to keep mentioning it, but its my only experience). I liked my Leicas when I had them...so something in that size would be preferential.
6) I would like to fill one big card for the reason of focusing on the making of the images rather than the entire process. I'm finding too often that I'm 'too close' to the images when I shoot, upload, edit. I'd like to separate 'myself' a bit more from the moments before viewing the images. I was really inspired by Gary Winnogrand. He shot hundreds...even thousands of rolls of film that he didnt even develop for years. That has to be cool as hell! Same with the most recent 'famous' street photographer, Vivian Maier. The owner of her images still has thousands of images he hasnt even scanned yet. How incredible!
7) I'd most likely get a single lens in the 24-35mm equiv, f/2ish (not DOF) range and call it a day. I dont shoot my family stuff much longer than 50mm, so that would really suffice.
8) As Brian mentioned in the thread, the idea of DOF on a micro system is actually great for me! My personal photography involves a lot of context. I dont want blurry backgrounds. So MORE DOF with the light gathering of an f/2 lens is really appealing to me.
9) Image quality is obviously important, but I dont really fret over 'tack sharpness' or 'bokeh quality'. If a lens is reasonably sharp, I'm generally pretty happy. My focus tends to be more on content, composition, light, timing. If I do those four things, sharpness wont matter much.
10) The Leica M9. Meh. I'm not poo poooing on anyone who owns that camera as I will always have an affinity for Leica products, I just think there are cameras for WAYYYY cheaper that will do the same thing. With that said, if money were no object, I'd probably own one because I like the way it feels.
After reading every post in this thread and talking to some photographers who I really admire, I am leaning toward the Olympus OM-D with maybe the 12mm or the 14mm pancake...then maybe the 25mm "Leica" down the road.
Thanks again all! Please keep posting! I love reading!
p.5 #10 · "Best" Mirrorless Camera with Viewfinder?
But none of the dirt cheap 50 mm-ish lenses are made for sensors with super high pixel density. On 4/3, I highly doubt that there are many alt lenses worth the hassle and weight compared to the modern lenses made specifically for the system.
OTOH, one cannot say that a m4/3 lens is BETTER than a comparable lens made for a bigger sensor, sure it might or even likely be on a 4/3 body as stated above, but the other lens might look way better on a APS or full frame body.
And with a multiplier factor of 2x, alt lenses hardly makes any sense at all. Frankly I cannot see any reason at all buying an OM-D over a 5N if you intend to shoot with alt lenses.
p.5 #11 · "Best" Mirrorless Camera with Viewfinder?
millsart wrote:
Photography like many pursuits, is both an art and a craft.
All the technical knowledge in the world isn't going to mean squat if your don't have an artistic eye for composition. Ansel Adams said something akin to a technically perfect photo of a boring subject gives you nothing more than a perfectly boring photo.
However, you can have an amazing eye for composition but if you don't know the technique, your not going to be able to fully realize that vision. You can't just throw a camera on a tripod and wildly spin the dials and see what happens, you've got to have some knowledge about what and how things work.
Thats really what I've always enjoyed so about photography, it appeals to both my geeky techie side as someone who loves computers, using tools, and mastering a craft or process and yet at the same time, it also lets me be creative and think outside the box....Show more →
p.5 #12 · "Best" Mirrorless Camera with Viewfinder?
canerino, that clarified things a bit and I'm sure you will enjoy the OM-D Please come back and post some pictures, loved the ones on your website. Don't forget the very compact 20/1.7, albeit a tad bit longer than you wanted, which makes the kit extremely light.
My personal belief is that the OM-D is more of a "photographers camera" than Nikon V1 which feels more like ... a soccer mum camera.
p.5 #13 · "Best" Mirrorless Camera with Viewfinder?
JonasY,
OM-D over the 5n for legacy glass. Yeah, prolly not. Only the reach factor if you're in to long focal lengths maybe.
canerino wrote:
After reading every post in this thread and talking to some photographers who I really admire, I am leaning toward the Olympus OM-D with maybe the 12mm or the 14mm pancake...then maybe the 25mm "Leica" down the road.
Thanks again all! Please keep posting! I love reading!
If I know us we will.
But it sounds like you've made good choices there. For what you checked off that sounds right to me too.
p.5 #14 · "Best" Mirrorless Camera with Viewfinder?
sounds like the OM-D to me unless you decide you like the handling of x100 or nex-7 + 24/1.8 better. check the size difference between the 3 with most useful lenses to you: http://camerasize.com/compact/#133,289.91,33.85,ha,t
p.5 #15 · "Best" Mirrorless Camera with Viewfinder?
Bif, there are certainly many great lenses to adapt. However, the FD 50/1.4 is one of the lenses I tested in those links I provided, and it comes nowhere near the Oly 45 in resolution or bokeh on a m43 body. Those links go to a test I did with 12 50ish lenses and none of the adapted lenses came close to the Oly.
Anyway, there are of course many reasons to adapt lenses, and I do use many adapted lenses, but they aren't the majority of my shooting.
BTW...these back and firths are kind of fun...hope you aren't taking any offense to the little bickering. I don't mean any bad will
p.5 #16 · "Best" Mirrorless Camera with Viewfinder?
Yeah, I noticed that back when you first made those tests. I think I mentioned at the time that you had a bad copy of the FD. I can't remember exactly now but it seems like you gave a nod to the possibility.
Oh, and absolutely not! It's all great fun! When I stop having fun you just won't see me. I almost never rage-post and for sure never if it were to involve someone involved in the discussion. That's the land of forum-nazis - I don't go there.
Adapted lenses as you know, are pretty much all I shoot tho. For me it's all 7 of the reasons I gave but primarily I think it's money. When I see a $250 (on e-bay) lens going for $25 (locally) I just can't say no. And that never happens with native µ4/3 lenses.
p.5 #17 · "Best" Mirrorless Camera with Viewfinder?
I don't know..I think my FD is pretty good. It's sharper than the EF and the Sigma 50/1.4 that I own/owned. It's not a bad lens and would be very sharp on full frame wide open but it doesn't compete with the Oly. Perhaps you had a bum copy of the Oly.
p.5 #20 · "Best" Mirrorless Camera with Viewfinder?
Well dang it! One of us had a poor copy of one of those three lenses! ;D
Also in micro contrast, stopped down a little the C/Y Tessar 45, the C/Y 50/1.7 and the M42 Yashinon 55/1.8 kinda stomped it. The later is a $25 lens and usually comes with a camera attached to it for that.
JonasY wrote:
But none of the dirt cheap 50 mm-ish lenses are made for sensors with super high pixel density.
This also doesn't seem to matter. This is a false assumption I hear from a great number of people. There seems to be no evidence in support of the theory but lots of evidence to the contrary. Glass is glass I guess. The best lenses of yesteryear for MF and FF render the same on µ4/3 cameras (meaning their center portions) as do the best native µ4/3 lenses. And often better or with a more unique rendering style.
