EVIL Cameras. Will you go to the dark side?

[Lost Canadian]

I think one of the more intriguing aspects of Sony's new offerings are their low prices. The Nex-3 starts at $549.99 with the 16mm 2.8. The Nex-5 starts at $649.99 with the 16mm 2.8. Compare that with the Olmpus EP-2 that goes for $899 with a 17mm 2.8 or the Panasonic DMC-GF1 that goes for $899 with a 20mm 2.8.

 

[DaveM]

call me a cynic, but all that gee-whiz electrickery used to replace a simple glass prism seems like a great excuse to cheat me out of $1,000 and give me a worse image before clicking the shutter. I think I'm a pass :elkgrin:

In case this hasn't been addressed in the previous 7 pages (yeah I skipped ahead, so what! ), this is not a "new" concept but a modernization of the range finder style of camera. I have been asking for this for years and am pumped its finally arriving in a format that may eventually be priced in my range.

What you potentially getting here is all of the sophistication, flexibility and quality of a larger DSLR and lens system with out the bulk and weight of the reflex part of the camera. It's really the perfect travelers camera and why it has been a favorite for street journalists and documentary photogs for decades (usually the old Leica range finders).

 

[john101477]

Had to dig into this sony a little more. The NEX 5 sounds like a stellar camera using a true CMOS sensor instead of the NMOS of the Pan and Oly. Technically the Sony is not even a 4/3rds camera. it just incorporates the mirrorless function.
Sensor wise the oly and pen sensors are 18x13.5mm vs sony's 23.4x15.6mm.
I look forward to seeing the test shots and finding out what if any noise issues there might be. The only thing that kind of bothers me is sony's target audience. I seriously hope they do not sacrifice image quality and camera ability.
I still can't get over the size, even compared with the GF1.
These "Micro" cameras may be just starting out with a long way to go but the sony might just leap ahead of the curve here.

 

[john101477]

Outdoor Photographer has a neat little article about the Sony NEX5 thought I would share
http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/gear/first-look/sony-alpha-nex-5.html

 

[ywen]

holy crap your actually gonna compare the MF backs from something like a haus with those of a CCD from a P&S. thats crazy. No the D90 is not a pocket camera but it sure as heck will take a lot better image than the GF1. plain and simple the GF1 just does not have the dynamic range of even a small dslr. also those people hoping to capture great images at dawn or dusk are in for a rude surprise with the bad ISO

So wrong with that statement it's not even funny.

Schooling(not my site): http://starvingphotographer.com/blog/tag/panasonic-gf-1/

The micro 4/3 format are excellent travel camera. In fact, compared to consumer-level DSLRs from Nikon and Canon, the m4/3 is superior in almost every way, other than high ISO performance.(Physical limitations such as sensor size dictates as such) However, when talking about lens sharpness, and resolving power at similar resolutions, the traditional DSLRs can not compete with m4/3 at the same price range. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

I recently picked up an Olympus E-P1 with a kit zoom lens (which has tremendous corner resolution). I've since also got the Panny GF-1 with the 20mm / 1.7 prime. These cameras rekindle my love for photography. I'll leave the pricey/bulky DSLR gear for paid-work and play with these small wonders.

 

[AYIAPhoto]

Had to dig into this sony a little more. The NEX 5 sounds like a stellar camera using a true CMOS sensor instead of the NMOS of the Pan and Oly. Technically the Sony is not even a 4/3rds camera. it just incorporates the mirrorless function.
Sensor wise the oly and pen sensors are 18x13.5mm vs sony's 23.4x15.6mm.

I think you may have your terminology a little mixed up. 4/3 refers to the aspect ratio(width/height) and can be achieved with any size sensor that is a third wider than high. Also, the sensor in the Panasonic and Olympus is the same size used in their DSLRs. It is a true 4/3 camera, the "micro" designation refers to the smaller body(allowed by non use of a prism/mirror) and the shorter distance between the lens mount and sensor(allowing smaller lenses).

While the NEX5 uses a more common APSC sensor, the lack of a traditional viewfinder and diminutive size(much like the PEN) relegate it more to use with small primes than traditional zooms. Holding a larger lens on such a small body away from your face to use the LCD cannot be an easy task. Both lend themselves better to the typical arms length shooting style of P&Ss while offering the techno-geek something to brag about. The Panasonic G-series however has the electronic viewfinder(which was amazingly clear when I fondled one) and a more traditional DSLR shape.
The PEN does have an optional viewfinder that mounts in the hot shoe, but that leads to loss of an external flash(although I wouldn't mount one on such a tiny camera as that would make it more unwieldy). And unlike the G-series it is only a guide, not actually showing what the sensor sees.

All told I do hope to see more cameras like the G1 rather than the "hipster" digital pocket changeable lens cameras. Whether 4/3 or APSC, more lenses without adapters and actual viewfinders over LCD only, these cameras have the potential to change the industry. The cameras being smaller and capable of using quality glass would easily better serve those who buy full size DSLRs which never leave program mode.

 

[Photog]

The 4/3" type of sensor is a 4:3 ratio, but so are most of the small P&S sensors. They are this ratio, because this is the typical ratio of a computer screen.

Olympus, Fuji and Kodak all teamed up to create a standard 4/3 system, which has a 2X crop factor compared to 35 mm film (cambridgeincolor.com).

The 4/3" type sensor is a certain standardized size, it is larger than the typical P&S sensor that also has a 4:3 ratio.

 

[CSG]

I would likely get a GF1 if I could sell my D90 for an appropriate price. I've had a chance to handle one and I was very impressed. I liked it more than the Oly and the Sony just looks wrong.

While I loved my Olympus OM SLRs I loved equally the 35MM rangefinders of the day like the Minolta 7S II and little Rollei 35mm compacts.

At this point I'll probably wait for another evolution or two.

 

[AYIAPhoto]

The 4/3" type of sensor is a 4:3 ratio, but so are most of the small P&S sensors. They are this ratio, because this is the typical ratio of a computer screen.
Olympus, Fuji and Kodak all teamed up to create a standard 4/3 system, which has a 2X crop factor compared to 35 mm film (cambridgeincolor.com).
The 4/3" type sensor is a certain standardized size, it is larger than the typical P&S sensor that also has a 4:3 ratio.

Most of the P&S cameras I have looked at have been 16:9. Even my Panasonic bridge camera uses a 16:9 sensor(while you can crop in camera to 4:3). The problem is some believe the micro 4/3 cameras use a P&S sensor because of the 2x crop factor while cheering the NEX5 for using a 1.5x crop APSC sensor. Where my FZ35 has about a 5.5x crop factor the M4/3 is a huge leap in sensor size. These cameras have the potential to produce the same images as either a Olympus or Sony DSLR while fitting in a smaller package.

I would likely get a GF1 if I could sell my D90 for an appropriate price. I've had a chance to handle one and I was very impressed. I liked it more than the Oly and the Sony just looks wrong.

I was seriously considering the G1(I don't need video) when it came out but only passed due to lack of lenses and slightly due to no in camera stabilization. The body is near identical in size to that of my bridge camera(minus its permanently mounted lens) and much smaller than my Pentax. As I shoot people and not landscapes, a camera that small with a 4/3 sensor would be great with the 20 and 40mm lenses(the 40 would give near the same FOV as the much vaunted "nifty50" does on an APSC camera).
As to the PEN and NEX, I stated above that they don't seem to provide a means to actually use them like an SLR due to their shape.
What I would love to see is Fuji jump in this with an EVIL camera using their SuperCCD sensor. After playing with an S200exr and an S3-pro, those sensors while not truly the advertised MP(Fuji says "effective" MP due to the design) produce some of the best skin tones I have ever seen from a digital.

 

[LeoLR]

Is this real enough glass?

50mm 1.4?


I sell them for $579.99 in the shop and cant keep them in stock. I am shooting Leica glass on my Olympus (new 4/3s stuff) and that lens is all the rage for EF shooters since Canons lenses suck. :elkgrin:

 

[Lost Canadian]

New toy, and some initial thoughts.

I picked up an E-P2 the other day and finally got around to using it a little today. Straight off the hop, it's wonderfully small and easy to throw around your shoulder and keep with you all day. Compared to my D700 it's night and day. Will it fit in my pocket? Not with the 14-42 but most likely when my Panasonic 20mm comes in. The biggest thing is it's small enough not to attract attention if I decide I want to go out and grab a bite to eat and I place it on a table. Think rangefinder, same kinda thing in terms of size. Image quality falls squarely between that of a full frame DSLR and a high end point and shoot. The files are certainly much nicer then that of the Canon G series or S90 and there's certainly more range and flexibility with the 4/3rds sized sensor, but in the same league as my D700 this camera is not.

Why the E-P2 you may ask? Well, I was back and forth between it and the GF1. The GF1 was nicer in a lot of areas; better screen, it has a flash, it actually felt more comfortable in my hand then the E-P2, but two things won me over with the Oly. First and the biggest reason was when I put both cameras up to my eye with their optional viewfinders. It was no contest really. In bright light neither camera is a whole lot of fun to use when trying to compose or focus using the LCD on the back. The EP-2's optional viewfinder however is very clear, very bright, and very nice in use. The GF1's...meh. I would also like to use some manual focus legacy glass with this camera so I having a nice viewfinder to look through is pretty much a must have if I want to have things in focus. The difference between viewfinders became a bigger selling point then I originally thought it would be.

The second thing was in camera image stabilization. It wasn't a huge deal for me but having it in the camera is kinda nice, with every lens becoming stabilized.

Am I happy with the purchase...yes, so far I am.

Here are a few sample shots I grabbed today to see how the files looked. I'll provide more thoughts on these little cameras once I spend a little more time with my E-P2.

 

[Photog]

I like your thought process, Trevor.

I am anxious to hear your opinion after some more use, with different lenses, filters and dealing with the image files. :ylsmoke:

 

[nwoods]

I like your thought process, Trevor.

I am anxious to hear your opinion after some more use, with different lenses, filters and dealing with the image files. :ylsmoke:

x2

 

[TJDIV]

People make those claims about my process all the time. I hear it often from within the halls of my own institution. I nod my head, find common ground and move on. I know I cannot change minds, nor do I have time to do so.

Let it go......

:friday:

b'sides...I come to the photo forum for pictures man!!!

 

[Lost Canadian]

Nikon Q

Anyone remember the old Nikkor lenses that were designated as "Q mount" for the first Nikon RF's?:ylsmoke: