Puget Sound Sunset – BMPCC RAW from Forrest Burger on Vimeo.
Panasonic GM1 image samples at Pixinfo.
Nachteule E-M1 (Pen And Tell).
Olympus Stylus 1 Review (Photographyblog).
Sony A7r, Fuji X-E2, Panasonic GH3 – DOF and Noise comparisons (Soundimagesplus).
Panasonic GX7 Notes: Big Noise about Noise (TheOnlinePhotographer).
Olympus Partners with Denis O’Regan (Photographyblog).
GX7 test by BMCR.
Insectography with the Olympus 60mm macro at Samudranil.
Best lenses for the Olympus OM-D EM-1 (DxOmark).
68 Responses
re : Sony A7r, Fuji X-E2, Panasonic GH3 – DOF and Noise comparisons
Its fine to test Depth of field like that to compare the 3 different sensors at f5.6. But when using the same images to test ISO noise it doesn’t make a good comparison. The A7 has a lot more out of focus areas and it makes it hard to compare, especially to the Panasonic. But even having said that it does surprise how noisy these Sony Full frame cameras appear to be, even with the A7 and it’s 5DMkiii size photo sites. The APSC X-trans is still the noise winner.
Have a look at actual controlled RAW files if you want to see the real differences. The crops from the Fuji get smoother and smoother by overloading on NR it is certainly not the noise winner.Unless mush and blurred detail are high on your list
no that is not high on my list, I want to see the high res files, how did you find them? I am not familiar with sound image plus and cant for the life of me work it out?
Is the “smoothing” in the Fuji raw image the result of NR being applied… or is it an issue with the X-Trans sensor itself?
Odd Question…is there any way to use my Sony e-mount lenses on a micro 4/3 camera? Via adapters or some other way?
Nope, the M43 flange distance is 19.25mm and the Emount (and Xmount) are 18mm so no way to do it. Unless you’re prepared to engage in a little lens whacking?
bummer.
Dreadful overpriced tiny sensored format. How anyone can go below asp-c is beyond me. If you compare the price and performance of the CaNikon bodies/lenses/accessories compared to PanOlympus, it just gets embarrassing. Can you believe a Walkman manufacturer has more success than a so called “established” camera brand. No wonder micro 43 has only gained a micro market share, lol. Spectacular fail!
(and let’s not forget what an immoral, crooked company Olympus is)
Isn’t it past the time to change your diaper and be put to bed troll?
That’s not very polite. I have a Nikon D5200 with a great zoom lens it came with, and even though it takes great photos, just as good as my friends D800, I find it is just a bit too big. I am hoping to find a camera just as good as the D5200 which is smaller. Sometimes big is bad.
Excuse me young lady, and I assume you are a young lady if you have difficulty handling a D5200, but I almost spat my tea across the computer monitor when I read that your D5200 files are “just as good” as your friends D800. May I ask just how you are comparing these files? I can only imagine it’s over facebook? The D800 has a vastly superior professional grade sensor inside, and can’t possibly be compared to a cropped sensor camera.
Randal don’t you think 99% of all photographs taken are destined for the ineternet? Including D800’s and your precious DF? So what’s the point of lugging around kilograms worth of kit in this day and age, for an inperceptable difference in image quality?
I agree completely Clive, I just ordered an E-PM1 with a full IR conversion happy in the fact that those images are destined for my flickr and smugmug and confidant that there is no point getting a newer more expensive model. It’s about the art of photography and not much more 😉
Hi Randal, I wonder, was it really needed to act impolite, short-sighted and sexist?
“Excuse me young lady, and I assume you are a young lady if you have difficulty handling a D5200,”
Kerri did not say anything about having trouble handling the 5200, but said preferring something smaller. Why is it that you fail to read properly and then reply with a sexist response based on rather inane assumptions?
“The D800 has a vastly superior professional grade sensor inside, and can’t possibly be compared to a cropped sensor camera.”
And know what? for the very very very large majority of pictures that difference turns out to be totally irrelevant because of how the pictures are used. Since its about the results and not about how you get those results, there are certainly cases where one can make a totally valid comparison between a D5200 and a D800, or between a cellphone and a D800 for that matter. Its typically number masturbators and gear-heads who don’t understand this because they simply don’t understand that all that technology is a means and not a goal.
Also, you can stick your ‘professional’ there where the sun doesn’t shine, at least according to Nikon its merely an (advanced) amateur camera, and you’ll have to go for a D4 to get something ‘professional’.
I slept with your mother.
70 years ago you would have written:
RIP 35mm Film
Dreadful overpriced tiny framed format. How anyone could go below 6×4.5 is beyond me. If you compare the price and performance of Speed Graphic and Rolleiflex bodies to Leica, Contax, and Nikon, it just gets embarrassing. No wonder 35mm will never be more than a niche format with a small following. Spectacular failure! I pity fools like Cartier-Bresson who waste their time with this grainy, reduced depth of field travesty!
(and let’s not forget we just vanquished those upstart Japanese and Germans)
This is revisionism floated often by 4/3ers. But smaller consumer cameras were certainly a mass trend by the early 20th century up until the time of the 1914 war. Barnack’s was one of many, and after the war years they flourished more. Why not? Since the 1880s Kodak had been marketing mass consumer cameras, making them as small as possible.
35mm format survived and the others didn’t because it became increasingly popular among amateurs. It didn’t overtake professional photography for a number of reasons; films were nowhere as good as they were later, nor were lenses universally as good for the miniature format. But more importantly a larger negative could well be manually retouched, a must in portrait and event and news and formal photography. Think of having a digital camera today without the possibility of post-processing… same thing!
Not to mention that medium and large format offers startingly better detail and tonal gradation than 35mm. If you ever shot film to a large degree, the differences were undeniable.
The 135 format was not a beleagured David being pummeled by the big bad large formats. It was always popular, even though it was never as good as the largers.
Micro 4/3 does not hold that place today. If we want to play that we can say the same thing about say Nikon 1- a format arguably selling better than micro 4/3 in parts of the world. Nikon 1 is the format looked down upon by the adherent of the bulky micro 4/3, but more and more people are getting tired of lugging around the massive EM-1 and its lenses all day long, and rediscovering the fun of traveling light with a Nikon 1.
Not sure what vanquishing Japanese or Germans had to do with anything. Certainly there were American manufactures of interchangeable lens 35mm cameras as well. Micro 4/3 would love to be as proportionately popular today as 35mm was 70 years ago.
“This is revisionism floated often by 4/3ers. But smaller consumer cameras were certainly a mass trend by the early 20th century up until the time of the 1914 war. Barnack’s was one of many, and after the war years they flourished more. Why not? Since the 1880s Kodak had been marketing mass consumer cameras, making them as small as possible.”
Misrepresentation of facts (whats new, you keep doing that all the time).
Go look at the difference between the Kodak ‘consumer’ cameras on one side, and the Leicas, Contaxes, KWs and the like on the other side, there is ‘some’ difference in controls and operation, where Kodak concentrated on the ‘you press the button we do the rest’ idea for the consumer, the Leicas and the like from that same era clearly cater to people who want to do more then press a button, and are not aimed at that same consumer, AT ALL. You must be totally blind to miss that.
“35mm format survived and the others didn’t because it became increasingly popular among amateurs.”
Thats not an argument, that is saying it survived because it survived.
WHY did it become increasingly popular among amateurs? If you’d look at that you might actually start getting to an argument here, but your current statement says totally zero, nothing.
“It didn’t overtake professional photography for a number of reasons; films were nowhere as good as they were later,”
This is factually true, but in the 1990s, many professionals were still making the exact same argument about how 35mm was an amateur format, while film really had caught up to a point where for almost all everyday photography it would do the job totally fine, and to any objective measurements and standards had relegated larger formats to niche areas. By that time, the ‘its an amateur format’ argument had become a mostly emotional one made by photographers who resented giving up their investments in larger formats and the related skills. Guess what, very few such photographers survived, and those who did understood why those larger formats were not better for the large majority of applications, and hence could exploit the few applications where larger formats did still provide a real-world benefit. Think about things like movements that were readily available on large format cameras at the time, and still aren’t completely available for smaller formats even today. This is relevant for example for product photography.
By the mid 60s the point of 35mm being more then good enough had already been reached for many applications, especially news photography, as is evident from for example the PEN F, the very high quality of the optics for it (even to todays standards) and the popularity of this and similar cameras for photo journalists. Those 72 decent exposures from a tiny camera were more desirable then the theoretically better quality that 35mm offered (but didn’t show in newspaper prints anyway) , which essentially demonstrates that 35mm film was already more then good enough for the application, as were the lenses.
Good thing news professionals generally don’t give a thing about what certain studio ‘professionals’ are claiming.
“nor were lenses universally as good for the miniature format.”
About 40 years ago we had already quite reached the point where they were more then good enough for most applications, yet the exact claims you make have persisted for decades after that.
“But more importantly a larger negative could well be manually retouched, a must in portrait and event and news and formal photography. Think of having a digital camera today without the possibility of post-processing… same thing!”
I have manually retouched thousands of 35mm negatives throughout my life. If you were claiming this is easier when the negative is larger, you’d certainly have a point, but as you write it here, you are not having a point, but you are making a totally ridiculous exaggeration.
“Not to mention that medium and large format offers startingly better detail and tonal gradation than 35mm. If you ever shot film to a large degree, the differences were undeniable.”
Having shot film for many decades and still shooting film, yes, there are most certainly differences, and cases where those differences matter a lot.
But for the large majority of cases, those differences don’t matter at all, and haven’t been mattering for the last half century or thereabout.
“The 135 format was not a beleagured David being pummeled by the big bad large formats. It was always popular, even though it was never as good as the largers.”
Actually, National Geographic for example simply refused to accept 35mm for their centerfolds, way upto the mid 2000s, despite the fact that it was by then totally clear that modern 35mm film provided all the resolution and gradation they needed with ease.
The notion that 35mm is an ‘amateur format’ despite almost every news photographer using it and having used it for decades of professional use persisted well into this century, and only changed with the switch to digital.
“Micro 4/3 does not hold that place today.”
Not uniquely so, all smaller then 35mm formats hold that place today.
“If we want to play that we can say the same thing about say Nikon 1”
Or aps-c or..
As long as you get responses like “that would be a nice camera if it were full frame” with total disregard for the performance and requirements of the applications its being used for on any ‘crop format’ camera, yes, all such systems are in the same position as 35mm was a mere 2 decades ago.
“- a format arguably selling better than micro 4/3 in parts of the world.”
Which has absolutely zero to do with this whatsoever.
“Nikon 1 is the format looked down upon by the adherent of the bulky micro 4/3, but more and more people are getting tired of lugging around the massive EM-1 and its lenses all day long, and rediscovering the fun of traveling light with a Nikon 1.”
Hmm?
Where is a Nikon 1 with zoom lens thats smaller then a GM1 with 12-32? Oh wait, you start getting into the issue that controls need some room, that you need some physical bulk to be able to hold the thing at all etc. Not to mention, the N1 also approaches the point where it is possible to make a single zoom lens that does almost everything you need, so why not just get a fixed lens 1″ compact instead?
There is no way you are actually writing stuff there. I mean no way come on, come on that is just shapes and words no one can read or make sense of that. Man your blowin my page out. What are you doin. Youve gotta calm down theres a long way to go still. Peace bro.
Stop smoking pot all the time and you’ll find it easier to understand things.
Peace bro.
Sorry Yaa man, I think I came on a bit heavy with you, it must have taken ages to write all those words, cred. And ups for not being harsh with me, there is too much of that in the internet space.
I’m sorry, Yaa, I tried to read your response three times and just found it incomprehensible.
I understand the desperate need by some 4/3 adherents to be liked and respected, and so they pretend they are misunderstood by the ignorant in the way 135 was misunderstood in the late 20th century.
Except 135 format was not misunderstood, it was well understood. People in generations before us actually were intelligent.
Today’s equivalent to 135 format film 60 and 70 years ago is… FF. Er, because it is the same format. I guess an argument can be made that APS is the equivalent to 135 because it is by far the most popular format today.
But micro 4/3 certainly doesn’t make the cut of being in the same status as 135 60 or 70 years ago. As a subminiature format, arguably you can claim that micro 4/3 holds the place that 135 half frame, or 126, or 110, or 620 film held against 135 of that era. (Again, we are talking about formats, not about cameras and lenses).
Said subminiature formats were disdained in their day by photo enthusiasts, dismissed as not ready for prime time. You know what? The subminiatures lost more and more market share, even down to the short-lived APS film format for which some nice cameras were being planned. All those sub-formats died, and only the mainstream 135, which held the enthusiast mindshare all along, won the day.
Hint: That is not micro 4/3 today. I say this as the owner of a couple micro 4/3 cameras and some lenses.
There’s nothing wrong with micro 4/3 not being even close to as dominant as 135 was 60 or 70 years ago. It’s just that blatant transparent revisionism doesn’t help your cause, it just reveals you as ignorant or worse.
Small detail Ronin, I am of that generation that was around back then, and unlike you obviously, know what things were like in the second half of the 20th century. I am of that generation that you are calling ‘smart’, and I’ll tell you that you are totally ignorant of how things developed and of the attitude towards different formats for much of the second half of the 20th century.
But 135 format being called an amateur format way into the first decade of the 21st century, despite the overwhelming amount of professional use is something even you should have experienced, and it makes the exact point that you are trying to desperately ignore.
If it were upto people with your attitude, we’d be shooting large format film still much of the time, with medium format for less ‘critical’ things. Luckily most photographers who care about pictures instead of theoretical arguments simply ignored that kind of attitude in the past few decades, lets just hope they keep doing so.
With 110 you would get a reasonable print (not good) at 10×15 cm, any larger would just be a big mistake. The same can not be said for the current state of MFT, where you can print really large without any problems.
Sadly nearly everyone has missed the point of post. It’s not about interpreting history but the futility of trashing other folks’ tools. Millions of people have taken amazing images with crop sensor cameras, which suit their photography. The craftsman is the person who masters his or her tools, not the person with the most costly or advanced ones.
“Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not important.” Henri Cartier-Bresson
+1?
No actually +1000.
Nearly everyone, NOT including you, Yaa.
That “Walkman manufacturer” is actually Minolta with Sony’s name on it and I grant you much of the current innovation in cameras is currently coming from them. But if you ever actually took a four-thirds camera out into the real world and worked with it for a while you’d see how good they are and hiw much sense they make.
Another random question about 4/3 cameras…
Do most people use UV filters or some sort of protective filter over their lenses? I’m about to get the 45mm 1.8 and I saw that option and thought…should I???
unnecessary piece of unengineered glass designed to make money and reduce image quality I dont trust them at all I put a lens cap on when not in use
Not that often: I use ND filters when I see some nice clouds in the sky for example, but not on my every day use.
Of course you need it if you want to use f0.95 lenses under bright sun. Even with 1/8000 sec on an Em1.
On some lenses I use a step down ring or a metal lense hood on the filter thread as protection, but not an extra layer of glass that does not protect, but produces flares. I am not J.J. Abrams 😀
> Do most people use UV filters or some sort of protective filter over their lenses?
I use either UV or “protector” filters to protect the front element. This is normal practice. They do have some negligible impact on IQ, but nothing major. Also, when eBay-ing lenses, you do not remove the filter. As an assurance to the buyers that front element isn’t damaged.
The biggest problem I have encountered is that for smaller thread diameters, there are no slim filters. (E.g. said 1.8/45mm has 37mm filter thread. There are no slim filters for that size.) I can imagine that screwing them on would be a PITA, but really, you do it only once and leave it on.
SMD.
I’ve been using the most expensive filters I could find for any front threaded lenses I’ve owned since the daze of Nikon Fs. Through today with Oly EM-1 lenses.
Then L1A now for digital capture only UV.
Why wouldn’t you buy a filter to protect your front element?
Just wondering.
No reason not to. I’m just new to this. I’ll be purchasing my first “real” camera soon (I’m normally a video guy) and I just didn’t know if I should or if most photographers avoid it for some reason. I was looking at Hoya UV NXT or HMC filters on B&H…not sure the difference between the two…but they seem okay (or at least better than the cheaper Tiffen option) and reasonably priced. I’m just excited about this purchase and want to put in my order tomorrow and this was one of the things I was uncertain about.
Thanks in advance for your advice.
No reason not to. I’m just new to this. I’ll be purchasing my first “real” camera soon (I’m normally a video guy) and I just didn’t know if I should or if most photographers avoid it for some reason. I was looking at Hoya UV NXT or HMC filters on B&H…not sure the difference between the two…but they seem okay (or at least better than the cheaper Tiffen option) and reasonably priced. I’m just excited about this purchase and want to put in my order tomorrow and this was one of the things I was uncertain about.
Thanks in advance for your advice.
As a video guy did you see the review on EosHD for the Panasonic GM1 video? Looked pretty impressive.
Wow, thanks for all the advice on UV filters. I figured it’d be a artistic/practical debate of some sort. I asked my friend who shoots photos professionally and he said “yes, always”. Granted, he’s often in some precarious places with his camera.
For video, I need 1080p60 if I plan to match what we shoot at every week. Granted this camera would be a backup to my “big boys” but we shoot at 1080p60 and the EM1 only shoots 1080p60i so I ruled it out. That rules out Olympus too. But I think I’ll be happy with the GX7 w/ kit lens and 45mm 1.8. My wife approved of the purchase, that’s the important thing. Before then I was dead set on The Sony a7…but I like how great 4/3 lenses are MUCH cheaper so I can build a collection (from scratch) much more easily.
My plans are to shoot our kids with it. We have a 2 year old with another on the way. Our 2 year old also needs headshots every now and then (he’s in commercials) so I wanted to shoot them myself (hence the 45mm 1.8). I wanted the 75mm 1.8 for that but it’s out of my budget (for now).
As for my UV decision. I’m getting one for each lens. I decided to go with B+W MRC UV filters because it seems they have the best reviews compared to Hoya, Tiffen, etc. I figured I might as well go for it since it’ll be on the front of glass. I’m guessing a lens hood can still fit on it right? That’s how my video cameras work any way.
Thanks again for all your thoughts on the UV decision. As soon as B&H allows me to make the purchase (they’re always closed for various religious reasons) I’m gonna jump on the current deal. Excited!
“I’m guessing a lens hood can still fit on it right? That’s how my video cameras work any way.”
Yes, generally the hood either uses a bayonet or sleeve at the outside of the lens, whereas the filter screws into a thread at the inside of the lens.
I say ‘typically’, because there are some exceptions, those mostly concern ‘filter holders’ that attach to the front of the lens and allow using drop-in filters, such holders can be too big to allow attaching the lens hood.
Well I like 4/3 & m43 for traveling, and for the size; and when i was in Peru, I dropped my 12-60 (retail $999, and while most people won’t pay that now, now that the 12-40 2.8 is out for comp price [i’d love to see a comparison review], the 12-60 IS a superb quality lens) — and my cheap uv filter broke, saving my thousand dollar lens–I was out $20!–but my lens was saved… so, all those years of religiously buying protective filters paid off…
I don’t think you got the message, it was the camera gods smashing your annoying UV filter that sits on your expensive lenses causing refractions, dirt marks, and general smeary images. They finally got sick of it, they were trying to tell you something, you don’t need a UV filter, you need a lens cap!
Whoaa Irving dude you gotta back off a little. Old mate here just likes using filters thats all. Some people in this world do some wierd stuff but you gotta let it go by, what would Charlie Sheen do? Or Nelson Mandella? That’s right, ive been there too man. Chillax before you get inside so far you can’t get out.
And some people like to walk around without the lens cap, just to be a little bit more ready to take a picture. You take off your filter while i take a picture. So of course a filter could be smart.
BdV I think you are not understanding. Heis talking about a clear UV filter. No need take it off at all if you do not desire. You CAN shoot right through it. No need take it off and wait.
Oh sorry 😉 I meant: you take off your lens cap while I take a picture.
Seriously dude, that’s like the first thing I learned.
Valid tip, there are a lot of new comers here.
Wait, let me get a pen. So you take the lens cap off and then you take a photo. Ok think I’ve got it
No. While. I meant sometimes you need to be fast, and having a lens cap on your lens gives you the feeling of just not totally being ready to capture the moment.
On the contrary, I think you are not understanding what the consequences are of adding an extra layer of glass to your lens.
– increase risk of flare
– increase risk on ghosting
– add lateral chromatic aberrations
– add refractive inaccuracies due to not being absolutely planar
– add spherical aberrations when the front element isn’t totally planar
– add color casts due to unmatched coatings
And some more. Yes, you will get away shooting through them, until such time that image quality is critical or conditions are simply being nasty for flare and ghosting.
Try it someday, take your $20 ‘clear’ UV filter (hint, UV filter already says it is not 100% clear, because it does filter UV light, and that is not a simple on/off thing) and go take pictures of a sunset. Now remove your filter and try some more pictures, and see how many ‘suns’ disappeared together with that filter.
In case of a sunset or sunrise or city lights by night: you might sometimes want to unscrew it. So we should have asked SMD about his style of photography before giving advice / opinions.
I think that its totally fine to use them as long as you are aware of when to remove them. On lenses for which I don’t have a lens hood, I tend to use them as well for everyday situations, but remove them for situations where they tend to bring the potential of trouble. Personally I prefer using the hood for protection however.
Completely makes sense.
Lens hoods tend to do quite a good job at protecting the front element as well, with the additional benefit of at times preventing some flare, and without the additional issue of adding 2 more glass-air interfaces.
I agree with Bdv, I do the same, it’s the best of both worlds, I use a UV filter on all the time, then when I go to take the shot I unscrew it and take the shot. No problem with glass air interface or thumb marks of any kind.
I really hardly ever screw it off. I think the uv filters are on in over 99% of the shots (usually street, sometimes landscape).
I know what you mean I forget sometimes too
I am seriously not understanding why you guys use a UV filter and have to take it off for each shot, what is the point?
I think it’s similar to the Fuji or Leica experience where it slows your photography down, makes composition that little bit more demanding. You ultimately forget to take it off a lot of the time and get the disappointing images, but those shots you somehow managed to capture well you will cherish for a long time and remember, they’ll be ever so rewarding.
A “protective filter” is actually more likely to damage the front element than protect it. It is thinner glass that shatters into shards that can damage the front element. A hood performs much better and protects from lateral blows and denting in many cases as well.
The front element is the “face” of the lens, and many people who evaluate lenses like jewelry do not realize that the front element is the first and largest glass and a scratch has less effect there than anywhere else. I have picked up many nice optics at a discount by knowing that.
Read these for fun and enlightenment:
http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches
Tired of blotchy, noisy low res images? tired of paying for overpriced junk? Tired of being in denial and constantly having to defend your mediocre system? Time to ditch Tiny four thirds and use a real format for real photographers – the full frame format will last forever. Teeny four thirds? I’d give it 5 years max before it’s dead and gone.
You mean that poor kid with the user name ‘full frame’ is king? Totally unimaginable.
I think someone needs to get a job. Oh wait, FFIK is only 12 years old….not old enough to be employed.
I can’t imagine going to forums of other formats and blasting their format. Smack talk is for sports – why are these kids like FFIK not being taught this?
I am thankful that forums were few and far between ~14 years ago when folks were saying digital was dead and that there was no way film would ever be overtaken….so we didn’t have to endure a crop of idiots back than as we are enduring today.
yeah he too poor to have a proper camera like the Phase One, because only sensor size matters, right? 😉
> GX7 test by BMCR.
Very nice write-up and photographs.
Don’t see e-shutter artifacts. Slight OOF and motion blur – but nothing else.
@Admin, you probably should mark the article as containing a set of photographs shot exclusively with the e-shutter. (And continuous AF/AF tracking.) Many might be interested in the results.
Thanks for pointing that article out, I had missed it. Really nice to see a review whilst doing an actual shoot. I am impressed there is no shutter artefact like you said, I expected some kind of weird rolling shutter in stills mode with the dancers arms and legs but it’s not apparent. I’m impressed Panasonic is progressing with electronic shutters.
The insectography with 60mm one is spectacular 😉