dogbert

<p>I haven't used my Canon kit since I got into M4/3. I now have a Sony A7, Fuji X-E1 and Oly Em1 all for different purposes. The Oly Em-1 is a good as any SLR I have used except I would not push the print size beyond 13"x19". The Sony A7 is great with old MF primes and beats Canon FF for IQ at least for what I shoot, and the Fuji gives me a small system built around quality zooms with excellent IQ.<br>

I can't see myself ever going back to Canon unless they build a FF mirrorless with the functionality of the EM-1, which they sure as heck don't look like doing. I really should sell my remaining Canon glass, sigh!</p>

 

<p>As a former Canon shooter who has switched to Sony, I find the increased DR of Sony sensors invaluable for landscape shooting. Shadow noise is also better. That said, I think Canon sensors are fine for most shooting provided you are careful about exposure.</p>

<p>I'd third the suggestion to go with an E-M5 or E-M10. I've owned some of the P series and the E-M5 and now the E-M1. The E-M series is much more satisfying to use IMO. The viefinder makes a big difference to overall useability, as do the twin control dials.</p>

<p>Yes indeed, the 6D is a young camera, released in 2012 with 2007 sensor technology and a 2003 AF system. Canon should be able to milk a few more years out of it. <br>

In contrast to other manufacturers that are going for cutting edge features and retro 1960s/70s styling, Canon is aiming for a retro 1960s/70s feature set in the 6D mark II, with cutting edge pricing.</p>

<p>Great start to the new marketing campaign by annoying the customer base!</p>

<p>Very happy with Olympus warranty service in Australia, in contrast to my experience with Canon when my lcd came back scratched by a knife they used to cut off the bubble wrap and then denied it saying "it arrived with a scratch".</p>

<p>As proof to the Krochkwellian corollary, I am happy to defend KR too. Personally I think it is BS that he confuses beginners and if he does it is the beginner fault anyway. I was a beginner once, probably still am. I find KR provocative but that provocation is helpful in encouraging people to think more deeply about photography - why is he often going against the conventional wisdom of the internet?</p>

<p>I find it even more objectionable that people criticise his photography and then say that proves he knows nothing about equipment. His photos are just a matter of taste. Some I like, some I don't like. But just because you don't like his stuff doesn't actually prove anything. He has won awards, prizes and his photos show that he know how to use his equipment in a technical sense.</p>

<p>I suspect that there is a lot of envy around the fact that he has turned his opnions into a financial success, while the rest of us are not getting sufficient recongnition for our opinions, which obviously must be better than his.</p>

<p>There is a saying that the only drive stronger than the human sex drive is the drive to offer one's opinion. Clearly the fact that he is getting financial recognition for his opinion bugs a lot of people out there.</p>

 

<p>Can they do this for the X-E1? I thought it had the same EVF as the E-X2. Having tried the X-E1 I thought the EVF was a mjor let down compared to the OMD EM1.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And what this means is that you can match the high ISO results of larger formats but you cannot match their <strong>low ISO</strong> results.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This actually makes a lot of sense and I think for the first time I actually understand what has been troubling me about MFT as a format and the results I have been getting. Don't get me wrong I am a huge fan of Olympus and MFT but I could never understand why I was more than happy with the low light results I was getting with MFT, eg indoor shooting of people in available light, compared to larger formats, yet what I find lacking is IQ for lanscape shots at base ISO.<br>

Basically the larger formats at base ISO and stopped down deliver better IQ than MFT, but faster lenses, greater DoF, and IBIS means that MFT can match the larger formats once you need to start bumping the ISO up.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>In fact, the price in the shopping cart can be lower than the price on the "advertised" (including a product) page.</em>"<br>

But I think that's what Canon might try to stop. I'm not quite sure how they legally can (that would be price fixing) but I'm sure it's what they'd like to do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Price fixing generally refers to <strong>horizontal</strong> agreements between different sellers or manufacturers aiming to fix a price and therefor stop price competition. Eg if Adorama and B&H had an agreement between themselves to sell Canon products for the same price it would be price fixing and would be illegal in most countries. Similarly, if Canon and Nikon had pricing agreements between themselves that would be illegal.</p>

<p>In contrast, MAP and resale price maintenance (RPM) are <strong>vertical </strong>arrangments where a single supplier imposes conditions though the supply chain a way that attempts to contrain the onsellers' price or contractual terms with the final customer. The legality of such<strong> vertical</strong> arrangments varies a lot more by country. RPM is prohibited outright in Australia and MAP would probably fall foul of Australian law under unilateral conduct aimed at substantially lessening competition. </p>

<p>My limited understanding of the US is that MAP and RPM are not prohibited federally but may fall foul of some state laws.</p>

<p>In any event, MAP lowers further my view of Canon as a corporation. I like companies that compete by trying to make the best product at the most attractive price, rather than those that are focussed of shady strategies to reduce price competition.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My E-M1 also has the same problem: namely an unresponsive rear control dial. It seems exactly as described in the posts on DP Review.<br>

I have it set to do the exposure compensation. Sometimes it will work first click, sometimes you have to spin it several clicks to advance one third of a stop, sometimes it will go to far. So far I have always been able to get the EC to where I want it, but often it takes a few attempts. </p>

<p>Most of the best of the Pentax lenses of that era, perhaps with the exception of the 50f1.4 and 1.7 tessar designs are now well and truly outclassed by more modern lenses that make use of computer aided design and special elements/glass.<br>

I know because I have owned some of these lenses. That said, they tend to have more solid builds and can often render well and produce nice bokeh.</p>

 

<p>I switched to Canon from Pentax about 15 years ago. Never had a problem with Pentax ergonomics but have never gotten quite used to Canon ergonomics.<br>

With Canon I think part of my problem is that I have moved between rebels, xxD and xD class and the ergnomics actually changes between them, both in terms of button placement and which buttons and wheels do what.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>LOL. That lens is even more expensive than the Olympus lens you were comparing it with (assuming you are talking about 24-10<strong>5</strong>/4L). And I would say the Olympus lens is also "a consumer oriented pro lens", because their "real pro" zooms were f/2, not f/2.8.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 24-105 f4L can had for about $650 as part of a Canon kit and around $1k if bought separately. The Oly can be had for $800 as part of a kit and $1k if bought separately, so I think they are very much in the same price range. I called the 24-105 f4L a consumer oriented lens because Canon also has the $2k+ 24-70 f2.8 lens, which is meant to be their pro offering. I suspect the vast majority of 24-105 f4L users are enthusiasts.<br>

Oly's 4.3 pro lenses may have been f2 but they aren't showing any signs of producing such lenses for M4/3, so either we accept that they are no longer developing pro lenses or their proposed f2.8 pro zooms are their new pro lenses.</p>

<p>As for the Panny Leica 25 f1.4, I used it last night for the first time. Let me say beforehand I was quite skeptical about the price/performance of this lens, given I have the Oly 17f1.8 and the Panny 20f1.7, which are both fairly sharp and much more affordable. I mean how much better could it be for the extra $$.<br>

Let's just say I am blown away by the Panny Leica and have to admit that there is more to Leica than just the name. The sharpness and contrast, particularly micro contrast, even at f1.4 are well ahead of the other two lenses. And the bokeh both front and back is very smooth.</p>

 

<p>I think they rate on cosmetics. I had a 70-300 f4-5.6 IS DO lens, that was horribly soft at the long end and also had a binding/sticky focus ring. I complained, told them to check out as it should be obvious to anyone with experince with Canon USM lenses that it was faulty and sent if back. They sent me another graded slightly worse that performed much better. The one I sent back seemd to appear on their website again immediately with the same grading.<br>

I would never use them again. YMMV.</p>

<p>I'm glad you like the Panny Leica 25 f1.4. I have it on order and should be with me in a few days.</p>

<blockquote>Is that the same D800 that is <em>massively</em> outsold by the 5D Mk III, Abbas?</blockquote>

<p>I am not sure what the sales data is for the D800 but when comparing Nikon to Canon in this segement I think it would be more fair to compare D600 and D800 sales to 6D and 5D sales. Specification wise the D600 would also be competition with the 5D as it has a pro-oriented AF and other feature set.</p>

<p>While the 6D's AF and other features are so hobbled by Canon that its clearly meant to be a consumer only camera, I expect it probably has some overlap with the D600 market.<br>

I also think that growth in sales in this market segment is more relevant than actual sales. Actual sales will largley be a function of the existing user base in each system due to already owning either Canon or Nikon lenses. Hence there will be a lot of intertia built into actual sales figures.<br>

So anyone care to shed some light on the growth in sales of D600/D800 versus 6D/5D? To my mind that is the best test around market percpetion of the various offerings?</p>

 

<p>Yep. Cheer up. It cost me over $500 to get it repaired in Australia. They returned the old parts to me and it amazed me how cheap the ribbon cable and diaphragm looked - like somethign out of a $5 kids toy - not what I expected from a lens supposedly built to pro specifications.</p>

<p>Stephen<br>

Maybe I am making the case for M4/3 but my point was the latest "pro" oriented M4/3 gear is still behind older and cheaper amatuer APS-C gear, let alone FF. If I am really after such quality that I would drop $1800 on a lens I'd simply go for a Canon 85 f1.2.<br>

For me M4/3 is about small, convenient and acceptable quality for a given price, not incremental improvements for a huge increase in price, where final quality is at best only on par with the next size format.<br>

I think this is where Olympus went wrong with 4/3. They went the high quality, high cost route with a lot of lenses that simply could not deliver given the below par 4/3 sensors.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Much as I like M4/3 I just cant see the point of an M4/3 lens in this price range. At then end of the day a system is only as good as its weakest link and the M4/3 sensors even with an $1800 lens are not going to match Canon/Nikon/Sony FF for IQ.<br>

I was just last night comparing my EM-1 with Oly 12-40 f2.8 output versus my Canon 60D with Canon 24-104 f4L. So it was the latest M4/3 sensor with Oly's supposedly first pro M4/3 lens versus a 3 year old Canon APS-C body and a consumer oriented L lens, and while IQ was very close, I'd honestly have to rate the Canon output a little better.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have got an E-P3 and and E-M1 and have experience with the E-PL2. I far prefer the E-P3's ergonomics to the E-PL series, which used to drive me nuts. I suggest you handle an E-PL5 befor buying. The little control wheel is needed for exposure compensation but also very easy to accidently move, menaing I was often taking pics with the exposure compensation wrongly set or having to readjust it.<br>

The on-board flash of the P3, while not great, is far preferable to having to muck around with a clip on unit, particularly if you are planning to use the came as a carry-anywhere high quality point and shoot.<br>

The IQ of latest 16 mp Olympus sensor is very good. I'd say about 2 stops better in terms of high ISO noise performance. At about ISO 400-800 the difference in the sensors start to become apparent and from there on the new 16 mp sensor pulls further away.<br>

The new sensor also has better base ISO dymanic range. That said I think the IQ of the E-P3 is fine particularly with good lenses, and a step up from the E-PL2.</p>

 

<p>I don't think it makes much sense to buy a $2000 camera to use a $200 lens, namely the M 50 f1.4.</p>

<p>If it were my money and I were looking to recreate the K1000 experience digitally, I'd go for an Olympus EM-1 with Panasonic Leica 25 f1.4. Set the menus once, lock in ISO 200, and put it in manual mode, single shot. You have twin control wheels to set aperture and shutter and you can even select centerweighted metering if you want, instead of modern evaluative metering.</p>

<p>I've used Pentax M and K lenses on Canon and M4/3 bodies. I find the M4/3 bodies the best for legacy lenses, mainly for live view/ EVF and focus peaking and as Laurentiu points out you don't have to worry about the viewfinder darkening as you stop down. Main problem is the crop factor is 2x.</p>

<blockquote>I do not see how Canon could make a 24mm pancake to fit EF-S when the register (flange to sensor) distance is 44mm. For this register 24mm lenses have to be retrofocus, even, I would expect, with the opportunity to extend towards the mirror in the APS-C models.</blockquote>

<p>Pentax make a 21 mm f3.2 pancake for their APS-C sensor, so it is possible.</p>

<p>In relation to the OP, Canon have show little interest in developing EF-S primes, with the 60 f2.8 macro being the only one I can think of and that is years old. Ironically that lens could have been made an EF lens without much compromise to its size.</p>

<p>Lately Canon have been focussed on pro-oriented lenses withn their Mark II L program and pro-priced consumer lenses such as the new IS USM primes. They seem to have gone very quiet in relation to EF-S and EF-M.</p>

 

<blockquote>Currently when I go lighter I just take my 5DII, 40mm pancake, 24mm IS, and either an 85/1.8, or 135/2. It's not as light as an Olympus OM-D,</blockquote>

<p>These days when I go light I take an Oly EM-1, 60 f2.8 macro or 7 mm fisheye, 9-18 wide angle zoom, 12-40 f2.8 normal zoom, 20 f1.7 pancake, and either the 45-150 or 75-300 Oly telephotos.<br>

I can have 18 to 300 mm or 18 to 600 mm equivalent focal lengths, plus macro and lowlight capability. It all fits in a Think Tank Retrospective 5!<br>

If I want to go heavy, I take the 5D with a 24-105 f4L, which is about the same weight.</p>

<blockquote>Trying to hold a tiny camera with three fingers and a big telephoto is not realistic.</blockquote>

<p>The Pen series are meant to appeal to the crowd that are after something better than a P&S. Try using an EM-1 with the Oly M.Zuiko 70-300. This is eminently handholdable, work really well with the Olympus IBIS, and it gives you a 150-600 equivalent lens!<br>

In fact I could make the same criticism in reverse, namely that with M4/3 one can handhold a 600 mm equivalent lens all day and get good results, but who in their right mind could do this with a 5D3 and a Canon 600 f4 L.</p>

<p>To make an accurate judgement about mirrorless, you need to consider the whole system not just the experience based on one camera. That is like judging Canon EOS based on using the EOS M. I used to be skeptical about M4/3 but having used the system I have pretty much completely changed my mind.</p>

<p>I agree the EVF's still aren't quite as good as a FF OVF, but Canon is not offering a FF OVF in any camera under $1500 and the EM-1 viewfinder is bigger and more detailed than any APS-C OVF viewfinder from Canon. And it works in the dark!</p>

<p>Where I think M4/3 is lacking is less DoF control for those that want extremely shallow DoF, ie it won't make the 85 f1.2 crowd happy but will match the 50 f1.8; Maintaining quality in prints gets challenging beyond say 16'' by 24'' print size. FF is about two stops better on noise at high ISO but noise as an issue only really comes in as an issue above ISO 1600 and the latest M4/3 bodies are probably better than Canon APS-C bodies noise-wise.</p>

<p>On the other hand, the AF on the EM-1 with the Oly MSC lenses is blazing fast and faster than Canon ring USM! The dam thing can shoots at 10 fps, focus points can be set pretty much anywhere in the frame, you have live histogram in the VF, live horizontal and vertical levels, focus peaking. The in-body stabilisation is also a major benefit that has convinced me Canon's lens-based approach is expensive and obsolete.</p>

<p> </p>