cc_chang2

August 8, 2013

They really need some good marketing effort to sell their cameras. Instead of recruiting someone on the spot to shoot, don't they have in house pro-photographers that understand the system well in order to produce the best images it can produce in order to sell the camera?

Olympus tried once to ask the average users to shoot sports and posted their pictures on line as "evidence" that their m4/3 camera "can" do sports. The results were mostly negative since most of these pictures, as expected, are not very good. Panasonic tried recently to hire a professional to shoot the Peking Olympic game with just the G5 m4/3 camera, and the results were also mostly mediocre, in part because the photographer was not a long time m4/3 user so he apparently tried to use the gear the same way as he did with a professional dSLR. Havn't these companies learned anything from these mistakes? Selling camera is to sell a fantasy that these small cameras can produce "stunning" results as good as those produce by high end dSLRs. You cannot achieve this by just grabbing someone off the street to shoot, so to speak.

August 8, 2013

While we can achieve the same 24mm full frame field of view using a 18 mm lens on an APS-C camera, 12 mm lens on m4/3, and 10 mm on a 1-in. sensor camera (Nikon 1 system), do we get less perspective distortion with a 24 mm lens on a full frame camera? In other words if you want to do environmental portraits with minimal perspective distortion, would you be better off shooting full frame with a 24 mm lens rather than a 12 mm lens on a m4/3 camera? Thank you for your inputs.

July 19, 2013

So sorry, Im not part of a mindless collective 'drooling' over stuff. I shoot. I shoot a lot. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/8539414@N07/sets/72157629936411965/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.flickr.com/photos/8539414@N07/sets/72157629936411965/</a>

</blockquote>

Nice set!

June 27, 2013

I would like to know which of the mirrorless cameras have made the most strides towards focus speeds?

</blockquote>

You should really look into the micro4/3 system, not only they focus fast and accurate even in low light, the new sensor in Olympus OMD, E-PL5, and E-PM2, is as good as some of the best in the APSC world. The latter two are pocketable. The new Panasonic G6, although using an older sensor, is also pretty good and should focus slightly better than any Olympus camera. They have f2.8 fast zoom and many f1.8 or faster prime.

June 25, 2013

Think smartphones have already won. Stylish--make that most--p&s cameras are dead. Entry-level Canon/Nikon DSLRs aren't exactly big or complex and certainly compete on price. MILCs are having a tough time finding buyers.

</blockquote>

While people like to carry a go-everywhere camera, there are times when people want to take a few serious pictures, e.g., being new parents, traveling to a photogenic place, etc, which is when a more "serious" cameras comes into the picture. It has been talked about to death that while one can make a camera body small, you need to factor in the size of the whole package, lens, flash, tripod, and bag, ...to see why a smaller camera system is desirable for the vast majority of people. My favorite system is the m4/3 system because their lenses are smaller than those using APS-C sensor and their sensor is now outstanding. However the Fuji system also offers a range of very attractive prime lenses that are of very high quality and small. Where is the Nikon equivalent of the 14/2.8 lens? It is true that the sale of MILC has "plateued" but that is not the same as saying that they cannot find customers.

Looks like the X-M1 is made in Thailand.

</blockquote>

In a forum like this where people from all over the world participate, this kind of comment can be seen as derogatory, and insulting to people in Thailand. All Apple products are made in China, so what?

June 21, 2013

If at first you don't succeed, it's because you need to add a bazillion features

</blockquote>

Indeed that is what they did in Galaxy NX (and to some degree their phones). Thom asked a good question here: What photography problems are all of this Android phone features wish to solve?

http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/android-mirrorless-arrives.html

Samsung can make phones but they have shown that they do not quite get it what makes for a good camera. What does it take to allow photographers to quickly and easily capture the moment with the best IQ that one can offer?

I may be wrong but it seems to me that we already have our phone that can easily capture and share images. If someone pick up a camera this size, they are thinking of some serious photography here, and would most likely take their time to download all the images into a computer where they can check, modify, and save before sharing. Adding all of this connectivity feature is not essential for this type of phone, oh I meant camera. What is the size of their RAW files? How long would it take to transfer them over wifi? The camera also has LTE and 4G, does that mean that we now need a data plan for our camera? May be a fraction of the PJ may find this useful. Anyway, Panasonic G or GH series of cameras already have a built-in EVF. On top of that, these Panasonic cameras have added many features that are truly useful for the vast majority of photographers: articulated screen, thoughtful combination of touch screen capability and many programmable buttons and switches. I really like the lenses from Samsung, especially those compact pancakes, but they just could not make a camera that is really competitive.

June 20, 2013

For the vast majority of people, new parents, travelers, casual shooters, etc, the IQ of the current mirrorless cameras is more than enough, and these cameras have some strength that most dSLRs lack. Why aren't we seeing more of these mirrorless cameras? I think this is in part due to the slightly higher cost of buying a mirrorless system vs a APSC system. The high cost associated with mirrorless cameras is partly a result of smaller production volume, higher R&D, and perhaps manufacturing/distribution efficiencies. Another reason we are not seeing more m4/3, IMO, is the terrible marketing from Panasonic and Olympus in the USA that many people don't even know they exist.

June 19, 2013

The rumored Galaxy NX camera might explain why they slowed down work on the traditional NX system

</blockquote>

This one does not have an articulated screen. It seems to replace a lot of buttons and dials with a very large screen at the back, making one wonder how we are supposed to change settings with eyes on the VF. Thus for those who prefer to use a camera with a nice built in EVF and a big grip, this one does not seem to be better than Panasonic's G/H series. Unless, the IQ is much better with the huge file size of a RAW file. Until, then ... it will remain a dark horse with a nice selection of lenses.

June 19, 2013

I am surprised that no one has mentioned the m4/3 system, which at the moment offers you dSLR-like IQ in the smallest package — camera and lens combined. Considering the fact that the Olympus EPM2 body only is now $400 at Amazon, one really has to ask what is the point to get a very expensive P&S? The EPM2 plus the Panasonic 20/1.7 or 14/2.5 is pocketable. With the m4/3 system's many fast lens, you can take pictures of your kid indoors, which will occupy up to one year of your kid's life before he/she can run outside. These fast lenses plus the large sensor will give you much better DOF control over the P&S. M4/3's AF works very well, perhaps among the best in mirror less system, at low light. Finally, m4/3, Panasonic in particular, takes fabulous videos. With a system like this, you can collect lenses and grow.

June 17, 2013

Besides a very strong lens line up, their cameras are just not as competitive as those from NEX or m4/3. The sensor is behind those two in terms of low light performance. Is its RAM file still 40MB/ea in size? That is just silly. There is no IBIS, no flip out screen, no external EVF as an optional, videos are not particular attractive, AF is just OK, ...etc. This makes it difficult for them to stand out from the crowd.

June 15, 2013

Agree with Walt that the death of basic P&S cameras, and video cameras, such as the Flip, has long begun. Just like the arrival of iPod brought down the HF music business. The vast majority of the people much prefer to bring their favorite things along even at the expense of some loss of quality.

The P&S cameras are squeezed from one side by the smart phone and from the other by the mirrorless dSLR-like cameras. They have to be really special to find a niche or they will be gone soon as more and more people have smartphones.

June 15, 2013

Someone should post in the Canon and Nikon dSLR forums asking why are they still using traditional dSLRs?

June 7, 2013

I have read so much about these cameras but I never imagined that I would ever be buying one and I find it dumbfounding. I would love it if you guys have any ideas about the best system that would fit into my needs and offer roughly comparable lenses.

</blockquote>

At a glance, any of the three major players in the mirror less world, m4/3, SONY, and Fuji, can serve you. However they do differ in some ways that could affect you. I assume you have read about them already so what is your short list? Telling us this can save people a lot of time to tell you what each system can or cannot do.

May 30, 2013

There is a limit of how small you can make the lenses by just taking out the mirrors. If we compare the size of the NEX lens to those used by regular APS-C cameras, the difference is very small especially when the fl increases. For example,

The NEX 50/1.8 uses 49 mm filter and weighs 206g, while the Nikon 50/1.8 uses 58mm filter and weighs 187 g.

The NEX 35/1.8 uses 49 mm filters and weighs 155g, while the Nikon 35/1.8 is 52mm/200g.

The NEX 18-200 super zoom is 67mm/524g, while that from Tamron is 62mm/398g (The Nikon version is 72mm/560g).

The lens on the RX1 is massive ...

So what will be the selling points for such a FF mirror-less camera? SONY is losing money in its electronic division so they are not going to make any thing unless they are sure that they can make a profit. The wish lists from just a few of us are not going to change their mind. It is interesting to note that even Leica is not jumping on making a cheaper and smaller FF mirror-less, which should tell us something ....

May 29, 2013

I can only assume that they were hoping for a mirrorless FF camera in a P&S body style. Why, b/c the illusion that this small body is more compact and portable. However, this will change soon after you put a lens on it. The SONY RX1 is not pocketable while the Nikon A with an APSC sensor and a f2.8 lens is. Indeed, if you don't care for a more compact package, why bother with a mirrorless design, whose contrast-based AF is still no match with the very best using phase-detection AF. BTW, it seems that the Leica Mini M will have an APS-C sensor as well not a FF sensor.

May 24, 2013

if you read dpreview's speculation, you may agree that it makes a lot of sense for Leica to do it first. They already have the sensor and a range of lenses made by them. All they have to do is to take out the RF stuff from the current camera body and replace it with a simpler and cheaper body with an EVF. If SONY goes first, where are the OEM lenses? It is unlikely they will do it just for people who own and still enjoy using MF lenses made by others. If they do not build a whole line of lenses, the body is not going to sell, and it is not trivial to build high quality FF lenses — they can barely keep up with the NEX system.

May 24, 2013

Some speculation here that Leica is on to something:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/23/leaca-teases-mini-m-for-11th-june-release

IMO, technically, it is not hard to build a FF mirror less camera, but as Eric asked it, who is this for? How much would it cost and what is the advantage over existing systems? They can't build something if they can't sell it. At this point, most of the people go to mirrorless b/c we like a more compact system that can deliver DSLR-like IQ. The NEX system tells us that although you can make the cameras really small, bigger sensors need bigger lenses so at the end there is not much saving in the size and bulk of the system and top end NEX primes are expensive.

Eventually the mirror in the DSLR will go away and eventually the live-view AF will be just as good as the AF in the DSLR for tracking. Right now, however, a FF mirror less is not too promising for the mass market. I like the idea of a compact FF mirrorless. SONY shows that this can be done nicely but it is too expensive for a lot of people.

May 24, 2013

Sorry, it is E-PM2. Here is a review:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/21/olympus-e-pm2-review-just-posted

May 20, 2013

After reading up a bit, I may have to remove the EVF from my list, as those cameras seem to push the price point up a bit. The Micro 4/3 cameras are too bulky with the lens system

</blockquote>

You should really look into an E-PL5 or E-M2 plus either the 20/1.7 or 14/2.5 lens. The rear screen on these cameras is well coated so the screen can be used under broad day light, beach, desert, etc, for framing. With my aging eyes, I actually much prefer to look at a big screen instead of peeking into a small VF, whether optical or electronic. You can also get an used VF and leave it in the car, just in case. I am in my 50s, wearing glasses (both near and far-sighted), but I never find the need for one.

May 13, 2013

That is a major impediment to my finding one of the new mirrorless cameras that meet my criteria.

Any suggestions or even possibilities ?

</blockquote>

Check out the VF-4 on the upcoming Olympus EP5. It is reported to give FF coverage and sharp edge to edge. The rumor has it that this EVF will eventually go into EM6.

Besides those who have vision related issues, I am in my mid 50s, wear glasses, but I find the rear LCD on Olympus E-PL5 fine to use under broad direct day light (beach, desert, etc). Its coating is an improved version that allows the screen to be good enough for framing under such circumstances. I don't use MF lenses so I can say how good it is for that. The new EP5 has focus peaking which should help.

April 30, 2013

There are many places that sell you warranty to cover product like this, as long as it is new. There are quite a few you can easily find on e Bay or Amazon. User ratings seem to indicate that people like them a lot. However, keep in mind that new products tend to be buggy and if ordered from Amazon, the return is easy.

April 29, 2013

, I may need a "sports" camera once the little bugger starts kicking a ball!

</blockquote>

Try the "face detection" feature before you say that. It is very effective in tracking the face of someone who is running about. However, my EPL5 does not do so as well as the GH1 so it is possible when it comes to face-detection, or AF in general, the Panasonic mirrorless cameras may work better.

April 19, 2013

Just to stir things up some more I will post my OPINION.

</blockquote>

I think there is a difference between talking about the current mirrorless systems and the mirrorless systems in the future. Many of the "deficiencies" that you talked about are simply the result of the mirrorless system being in existence for about 5-6 years, as compared to the dSLRs, which together with their SLRs grand parents, have decades in development. Plus, most mirrorless systems start out to attract P&S shooters so they seemed to go out of their way to make the system light and small at the expense of performance. This is beginning to change in both the design of the camera bodies and the emerging of fast, weather sealed prime and zoom lenses. They will get to the flash eventually, but I must say that Nikon is no doubt a leader in the flash technology so other players may be just behind in this area in terms of expertise. My point is that none of the described "weakness" has anything to do with whether or not a camera needs a mirror, which is no doubt on the way out.

At this stage the real disadvantage of the mirror-less system is AF-tracking, because its AF is contrast based that is not predictive, and that there is a delay in displaying the live images as they are acquired when shot in burst. This issue will also get worked out over time as sensor and processing power improve.

For the working pro who need a system that is versatile and just works when you ask for it, the established dSLRs are still the best tools out there. However for the vast majority of people who need to take pictures of family life, what do they gain with a D800, 7100, or D4, as opposed to the much smaller and lighter mirror-less system that produce outstanding images? The vast majority of people already love to just use their smartphones, which will someday kill the market completely for entry level P&S cameras.

April 16, 2013

<ul>

<li>in camera filters</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

So does the Canon 60D and many others

<ul>

<li>in camera panorama</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

So does the Sony A580

<ul>

<li>in camera HDR</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

So does the Canon 6D

<ul>

<li>in camera multiple exposures</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

So does the Canon 6D

<ul>

<li>face focus</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

So does the Canon 5D MkII

<ul>

<li>touch/smile shutter</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

So does the Sony A550

<ul>

<li>Accurate auto focus (no micro AF adjustment needed, ever)</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

So does any DSLR with live view and contrast detect AF

<ul>

<li>Video (much) faster AF speed</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

Canon 650D, Nikon D3200

<ul>

<li>Metabone Speedbooster</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

The same principle can be applied to medium format lenses on a DSLR.

<ul>

<li>Focus peaking (Nex, Ricoh)</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

So does the Pentax K-30

<ul>

</ul>

</blockquote>

So do most Sony DSLRs

<ul>

<li>AF speed (Nikon 1, newer m4/3rd, RX100)</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

Canon 1Dx, 5D MkIII

<ul>

<li>adapting decades of legacy lenses</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

Most older lenses worth adapting work on either Canon EOS or Olympus 4/3

<ul>

<li>macro (p&s, for instance, 1cm working distance)</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

Shoot the same on a FF DSLR and crop = same result

<ul>

<li>LCD multi-angle viewing</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

Nikon D5000 and many others

<ul>

<li>EVF WYSIWYG viewing</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

Live view

<ul>

<li>Playmemories (Sony)</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

Canon Project 1709

<ul>

<li>Video mode manual control (GH3/2)</li>

</ul>

Most DSLRs with video function

</blockquote>

So I guess we can say that mirrorless can do AF-tracking as well, so why do we need dSLRs?

April 15, 2013

After years of study and experience in photography I am almost always able to identify a face.

</blockquote>

May be you are kidding, so forgive me if I take it seriously ...

The face detection works wonders when you need to "track" someone. This is particularly valuable for parents trying to photograph their toddlers as they run and play. GH1 is by now an old camera. However I was able to track my then 3 yr old running between streams of water coming from under ground (a common water feature in most of the parks in the US) and the keep rate was >90% — never once, the camera focused on the water or other kids. I would not take my D90 to do the same.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by cc_chang2