[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1309447771' post='9639']
I´m not getting overexcited...
[/quote]
Not overexcited maybe, but just think of a collection of lenses from UW to tele range both for an E-P3 and D700. You will see that the Nikon set will cost almost the double. Then, one must think of what does a FF DSLR system bring more than such an MFT system, incase:
- one does not need shallow DoF for portraiture.
- one does not take photos in low light.
These mini marvels said to have a very fast AF. They're not for professional use maybe, but there are a lot of manual adjustment possibilities. Sure they don't have an OVF but for some it is not an issue. And not to forget, they're not as heavy as a brick...
Serkan
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1309511616' post='9676']
Actually there are no reasons for a mirror full frame body (other than the possible lack of maturity on the mirrorless side although you may discuss this already).
SLRs were introduces as a workaround and it is time that this workaround dies. It's a past concept.
[/quote]
Well, not ready to die yet. It will take a long time I believe. Just like you have suggested, there is very crutial reason for a mirror viewfinder today: Quality of the view. Despite all the improvements having been done recently, even the best EVF is still behind the optical VF as far as the view quality is concerned. Hope you won´t question that ;-).
For the other topic, yes: the wildlife/long telephoto photography is the only area where APS-C body makes certain sense (only due to 1.5 "telephoto gain", though) over FF body... Although I know two such photographers who still prefer FF for IQ (resolution, high ISO quality).
p.s. Sony, while being very innovative, is not convincing concerning their Full Frame program.... A900/850 bodies were more or less failure due to excessive noise issues and also the crutial lenses - like 16-35 or 70-200 - leave something to be desired for the money. Personally I only saw 70-200G to be honest... and to be honest again, it was worse than Canon 70-200IS II or Nikon 70-200VRII... Both the sharpness at f2.8 and the bokeh quality (yes, I know, I´m the "shallow DOF" guy ;-). I have also heard many to complain about centering issues in their Sony-Zeiss 24-70/2.8, which is 2000EUR lens... (!). While their line of primes is very good/excellent, I think there is no big play for Sony in FF market until they update their pro zoom lenses to the competitive level + create a pro FF body with competitivne noise/res. ratio.
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1309512114' post='9679']
Not overexcited maybe, but just think of a collection of lenses from UW to tele range both for an E-P3 and D700. You will see that the Nikon set will cost almost the double. Then, one must think of what does a FF DSLR system bring more than such an MFT system, incase:
- one does not need shallow DoF for portraiture.
- one does not take photos in low light.
These mini marvels said to have a very fast AF. They're not for professional use maybe, but there are a lot of manual adjustment possibilities. Sure they don't have an OVF but for some it is not an issue. And not to forget, they're not as heavy as a brick...
Serkan
[/quote]
Well, true, I agree with you. :-)
[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1309512321' post='9680']
Well, not ready to die yet. It will take a long time I believe. Just like you have suggested, there is very crutial reason for a mirror viewfinder today: Quality of the view. Despite all the improvements having been done recently, even the best EVF is still behind the optical VF as far as the view quality is concerned. Hope you won´t question that ;-).
[/quote]
Actually ... I do.
What exactly do you consider to be "better" in a mirror viewfinder ? I mean objectively. Not subjectively.
Subjectively it feels nicer, of course.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1309511616' post='9676']
....
SLRs were introduced as a workaround and it is time that this workaround dies. It's a past concept.
[/quote]
Please don't let them die before the VF and ISO performance at low light gets better in MFT systems <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />...
[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1309447771' post='9639']
I´m not getting overexcited. Sure, it is big step ahead that finally there are high-quality fast primes with a really portable body capable of producing high-quality images with relatively affordable price on the market. Unfortunately, that´s still only micro 4/3 system so:
1) 12mm/f2 still gives ridiculously deep depth of field, roughly equivalent to 24mm/f4 lens on Full Frame Cam. So in other words, FF cam with 24/f1.4 lens is absolutely in diferent league in this regard.
2)45/f1.8 = 90mm/f3.5 on full frame. Hmm, that is "better than a spit into an eye" (as the phrase has it) but still: Far, far behind my 85mm/f1.4 on D700. [/quote]
Apples to oranges. Yesterday I hanged around with 1Ds Mk III and 85/1.2. Images were - as you can expect - superb in all aspects, paper-thin DoF included. That said, there's a price to pay. Money, size, weight. The MFT system was purposefully built from the ground up to target these aspects, while knowingly scarifying others. Basically, it's a whole different ball game.
[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1309447771' post='9639']
I´m just eagerly waiting for somebody to put the full frame sensor into a relatively light (of course it will always be bigger than m4/3) body and offer some fast primes with that. Currently only the overpriced M9 does that... Maybe Fuji with X200 model is a possibility in the future...? ;-)[/quote]
Undoubtedly, FF MILC is the holy grail. Like you, I'd love to have one but unfortunately, the only one exists today is very pricey and lacks AF.
FWIW, there are rumors of [url="http://photorumors.com/2011/04/06/rumors-of-fuji-x200-and-x300-are-already-floating-around/"]X-300 with interchangeable lenses[/url]. One can always hope....
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1309514265' post='9683']
Please don't let them die before the VF and ISO performance at low light gets better in MFT systems <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />...
[/quote]
What is exactly objectively "better" when using an optical VF in low light ? It provides an even darker VF image ... wow ... now what exactly do you do with that ?
An EVF shows an amplified images. Yes, it's noisy. Yes, it has a slow refresh rate. Yet ... you can actually evaluate your scene. Personally I rather prefer to see "something" than very little.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1309511616' post='9676']
- no mirror slap
- Live histogram
- Live WB view
- faster fps
- super-imposable whatever
- accurate focusing via magnified view
- at least potentially independent from focus shift issues in AF mode
Actually there are no reasons for a mirror full frame body (other than the possible lack of maturity on the mirrorless side although you may discuss this already).
SLRs were introduced as a workaround and it is time that this workaround dies. It's a past concept.
[/quote]
- Live white balance view... You hardly can see WB in sunny conditions on a LCD, so only through a EVF. The EVF's have their very own problems for now... I shoot RAW, and the OVF has the best WB view ever.
- Faster FPS only really makes sense with fast and accurate AF tracking. Which has not been developed yet, without phase detection. No... if you really need fast FPS, no way around a good sports DSLR yet. So, mirror needed to feed a phase detect sensor.
- The only thing I want imposed in the image while trying to judge a photo during framing might be a unobtrusive grid and AF point markings. Everything else will be too intrusive.
- Accurate focussing via a magnified view takes a lot of time, comparatively, so only usable for not fast, static shots. Oddly enough, the current bunch of DSLRs already do that fine. But they also handle fast focussing and tracking fine.
It is the only way yet to actually view through the lens. EVFs are still very artificial. With that, and the need for AF tracking, it is in no sense a past concept for many serious photographers.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1309514134' post='9682']
Actually ... I do.
What exactly do you consider to be "better" in a mirror viewfinder ? I mean objectively. Not subjectively.
Subjectively it feels nicer, of course.
[/quote]
That it feels nicer, already is objectively better.
How it handles more extreme lighting conditions is also objectively better..
EVFs still blow all detail out of bright areas like cloudy skies, and also detail on dark areas. They also tend to put a lot of distracting info and symbols over the image, instead of on the side or bottom of the image, like OVFs do.
And OVFs give a 3D feel, you look into the scene, helping me, at least, to judge my weird and shallow DOF nature images. EVFs and LCDs do not do that, they have a very "flat projection" 2D feel, in comparison.
That is quite a list, I think, in what OVFs actually "do better".
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1309518343' post='9688']
That it feels nicer, already is objectively better.
How it handles more extreme lighting conditions is also objectively better..
EVFs still blow all detail out of bright areas like cloudy skies, and also detail on dark areas. They also tend to put a lot of distracting info and symbols over the image, instead of on the side or bottom of the image, like OVFs do.
And OVFs give a 3D feel, you look into the scene, helping me, at least, to judge my weird and shallow DOF nature images. EVFs and LCDs do not do that, they have a very "flat projection" 2D feel, in comparison.
That is quite a list, I think, in what OVFs actually "do better".
[/quote]
Well, in extreme lighting situation you can see details in an OVF that will not be present in the final image. In an EVF I can or at least could get highlight/shadow clipping information instantly. That's on top of the histogram data which is also not available in an OVF.
Regarding "the distracting info". Agreed - but that's merely a matter of implementation and not a flaw of the concept. I think t's sometimes configurable whether to place the information into the view or below it (other than the histogram).
As far as the 3D aspect is concerned - I sort-of-agree. However, again, the final result is different to your OVF image. The EVF feedback may not be 100% accurate but I think it's still closer to the final result and you're not interested in your OVF view but in the output.
|
