[polarhki]

Did I suggest this ?

 

This relates to your statement above, "MFT is just a step up from digicams/phones". It is of course a question of the definition of "just a step", but my point here was that (for instance based on those examples), it appears to be a pretty big step anyway.

[polarhki]

If you have read the first passage you will actually notice that I emphasized that the primary differentiator of the system is size and weight.

 

Just as a reminder - Olympus has released the 12-40/2.8 and will release a 7-14/2.8, 40-150/2.8 and 300/4. These lenses are all directly competing with APS-C counterparts - based on a sensor that it simply a bit weaker.

 

Ok, acknowledged. If you look at rather wide angle lenses, then of course the argument about small-size and low-weight becomes less relevant. However, there is another point not to be forgotten: If you compare, for instance, the Olympus 12-40/2.8 vs the Zeiss/Sony 16-70/4, as you mention above, the Olympus is a f2.8, and the Zeiss/Sony is a f4. I know, depth-of-field is similar, and the total light gathered, too. But the light gathered per sensor area is anyway larger for a f2.8 than for a f4 lens, by definition. Meaning that in case the sensor is equally sensitive in both cases, it allows you shorter exposure times at the same ISO with the f2.8 lens (or lower ISO with the same exposure time). - Or do I miss something here?

[Brightcolours]

Ok, acknowledged. If you look at rather wide angle lenses, then of course the argument about small-size and low-weight becomes less relevant. However, there is another point not to be forgotten: If you compare, for instance, the Olympus 12-40/2.8 vs the Zeiss/Sony 16-70/4, as you mention above, the Olympus is a f2.8, and the Zeiss/Sony is a f4. I know, depth-of-field is similar, and the total light gathered, too. But the light gathered per sensor area is anyway larger for a f2.8 than for a f4 lens, by definition. Meaning that in case the sensor is equally sensitive in both cases, it allows you shorter exposure times at the same ISO with the f2.8 lens (or lower ISO with the same exposure time). - Or do I miss something here?

"sensor area"? 

APS-C has more sensor area. It therefore will gather more light at similar focal length/aperture ratio, by definition. 

Sensors will not be "equally sensitive". As photographer you never know just how sensitive a sensor is anyway, the changing voltage and signal amplification with the ISO setting changing is not communicated to the customer in any way. 

 

ISO is therefore meaningless. Nothing at all would necessitate to shoot MFT with f2.8 and ISO 100, and then APS-C with f4 also at ISO 100. One can set the ISO setting to whatever one desires, on both cameras. If one desires for whatever reason the same exposure time, then set the ISO on the bigger sensor camera a bit higher. Right now I am too lazy to calculate the crop factor of MFT in relation to 1.5x crop APS-C, but lets call it "X".

 

If you want an similar FOV for a 25mm MTF lens on APS-C, multiply 25mm by X. You get an equivalent focal length.

If you want an similar DOF for f2.8 on MFT with APS-C, multiply f2.8 by X. You get an equivalent f/aperture ratio.

If you then also want a similar exposure duration on MFT and APS-C when using ISO 100 on MFT, multiply ISO 100 twice with X. You get an equivalent ISO setting which will result in similar exposure duration.

[Guest]

Is ASP-C really that much better than m4/3 with regards to sensor area/benefits or are we comparing fuji trans-x to u4/3 bayler sensor ?

-

I think FUJI has done a wonderful job of mixing camera technology with decent lenses (though the QA still has me shying away from the system); where sony has shot themselves in teh foot ignorning the lens side of the equation.

[Guest]

I think FUJI has done a wonderful job of mixing camera technology with decent lenses (though the QA still has me shying away from the system); where sony has shot themselves in teh foot ignorning the lens side of the equation.

In terms of mirrorless market share Sony is actually doing well, if they shot themselves in the foot it didnt hurt them. Fuji occupies just a miniscule niche in comparison.

[thxbb12]

At the end of the day MFT is just a step up from digicams/phones whereas APS-C cameras are one step further.

And I'm sorry to say but the Fuji 16mp APS-C sensor is miles ahead of the MFT gang in my book - this is easily obvious during RAW processing.

Size-wise the Sony A6000 is as big/small as the Pana GX-7. And the Fuji X-T1 is actually smaller than the Olympus OM-D/Pana GH4.

As for the lenses - when comparing lenses of EQUIVALENT depth-of-field capabilities, there's no size difference across the board no matter whether you take a 1 Nikkor system or medium format (plus/minus a little). e.g. Take the Olympus 12-40/2.8 vs the Zeiss/Sony 16-70/4. 

 

Don't misunderstand me - I really like MFT and I will also continue to use it for personally (beyond PZ) but regarding the competition especially from Fuji there'll be difficult times ahead. Or to phrase it differently - I either use the Pana GM1 or Fuji X-T1 whereas my GH3 is collecting dust (and IQ-wise the GH3 is on par with the OM-D/GX-7).

 

I knew that this sentence in the review would cause some uneasy feelings but just like over at Sony I will not do any sugarcoating.

 

After having own cameras with the same generation sensors in FF (D800), APS-C (Pentax K-5) and MFT (Olympus E-M1), my conclusion is that the IQ gap is larger between APS-C and FF than between MFT and APS-C.

It actually mimics the sensor surface: MFT is 61% of APS-C which is 43% of FF.

 

I used to be obsessed with DOF, but even now I find that I get adequate DOF with MFT when using the right lenses (Pana 25mm at f1.4 or Oly 45 at f1.8) for the job. Most often than not, I don't need super crazy shallow DOF. Finally, I think MFT reached the good enough threshold since the E-M5. Whatever people say, I believe that the limiting factor today is the person operating the camera, not the sensor  :lol:

[joachim]

In terms of mirrorless market share Sony is actually doing well, if they shot themselves in the foot it didnt hurt them. Fuji occupies just a miniscule niche in comparison.

 

I think Fuji knows that and I have the impression they positioned themselves accordingly.  Looking at their pricing, their offers are clearly intended to be a step-up from the basic MFT offers.  In that "premium" market you will not sell as much.  So they must (should?) have planned for their market share being miniscule.  This is similar to Nikon D3300 and D7100 sales.  If Nikon expects to sell as many D7100s as D3300s they would live in cloud-cookoo-land. 

 

The question is, are Fuji's sales figures large enough with regard to their profit margins, to make the system economically viable.  Whether Sony sells more or less is irrelevant. 

[joachim]

I used to be obsessed with DOF, but even now I find that I get adequate DOF with MFT when using the right lenses (Pana 25mm at f1.4 or Oly 45 at f1.8) for the job. Most often than not, I don't need super crazy shallow DOF. Finally, I think MFT reached the good enough threshold since the E-M5. Whatever people say, I believe that the limiting factor today is the person operating the camera, not the sensor  :lol:

 

Nicely said about this current DOF obsession.

 

Your second statement was always true.  Holds for many arts/crafts.  The person matters more than the tools.

[Guest]

Whether Sony sells more or less is irrelevant. 

I responded, IMHO most appropriately, to the statement that "they (Sony that is) shot themselves in the foot". My answer was that Sony seems to sell rather "more" than "less". In other words, Sony took a very healthy amount of mirrorless market share, while the ever so wonderful Fuji is/was/will be a niche player.

[Klaus]

I think Fuji just doesn't have the production capabilities to compete with Sony.

And outsourcing everything to China is not always the best idea.