A tiny bit over a month from now Panasonic will announce the new Micro Four Thirds cameras. But the competition already started with the new 2013 camera announcements. Sony released the smallest APS-C mirrorless camera (the NEX-3n) and there is a small interesting news on the new Nikon D7100 (here at Amazon). It uses an APS-C (1.5x crop) sensor that has an additional 1.3x Crop Mode. In short the camera will have exactly the same 2.x crop mode of our FT and MFT cameras. Nikon writes: “the D7100 has the unique ability to shoot in a 1.3x DX crop mode for both stills and HD video. While in this innovative mode, shooters will gain an extra telephoto boost (2X), and a boost in burst speed to seven fps, with 15.4- megapixel resolution. Additionally, while in this mode, the 51-point AF array covers more of the frame, allowing improved subject acquisition and tracking performance through the viewfinder.”
To bad the camera doesn’t take FT lenses, it would have become a nice FT camera! 😉
—
P.S.: Thanks anonymous sender for pointing me out this new feature!
104 Responses
I believe Nikon can see the threat of folks going 4/3 solely for using the 35-100 or 100-300 super teles.
Using the 100-300 on the GH3 was a liberating experience, as it has roughly the same pixel density compared to using a 400mm FX lens (4 pounds at least) on the D800/D800E in the 15.2MP DX crop mode.
Why Panasonic chose not to let the GH3 doing 6-8 fps in continuous AF mode is beyond me. That would have captured a good chunk of Nikon long lens shooters who want to go light.
A Nikon FX shooter
“I believe Nikon can see the threat of folks going 4/3 solely for using the 35-100 or 100-300 super teles.”
The 100-300 is pretty average especially at the long end . While I really like my 35-100 also on the GH3 It most definitely does not deliver the same results as a 70-200mm does on either my D800 or D4 { regarding total light , DOF etc}
Using the 100-300 on the GH3 was a liberating experience, as it has roughly the same pixel density compared to using a 400mm FX lens (4 pounds at least) on the D800/D800E in the 15.2MP DX crop mode.
Or you could just use the 2 x TC on the FF , and end up with same total light, DOF , AOV , even if you needed to up the ISO the worst case scenario would be the same noise. With a far better selection of high quality lenses to choose from and it is far cheaper to buy a TC that works on all your lenses.
Why Panasonic chose not to let the GH3 doing 6-8 fps in continuous AF mode is beyond me. That would have captured a good chunk of Nikon long lens shooters who want to go light.
Because the C-AF and tracking are just as bad as on every mFT body , which you would know if you were a FF shooter which I doubt .
You totally missed the point of the original poster’s message. He is talking about how liberating it is to carry a 300-600mm equivalent lens on a GH3. The whole setup is much smaller and lighter than a FF setup. Even if the poster has not used a FF camera, many people (including me) have used both and can see the significant size and weight reduction.
If you bring TC into the equation, then you might as well include Micro four thirds teleconverters. Those are even smaller than the Nikon mounts. I’m not sure what M43 cameras you used, but how can you say C-AF and tracking on the GH3 is bad? Tests show that it is even more accurate than phase detection C-AF.
No man, he made his point right: the system has to deliver. Nikon delivers, and you can stack teleconverters if you really need to. M43 does not deliver, if you have expectations.
Well, you can put a light Nikon 70-300 in a D800 and crop those amazing 36 MP and get same results as with MFT. Better in fact.
I don’t disagree D800/E with 70-300VR yields okay image in 1.2x or 1.5x crop mode.
But ever tried to take video with that lens at the 300mm end on the D800? It was rather horrible.
The new 70-200/4 VR matched with the 1.4X TC does very decent video even hand held, but that lens plus the TC cost $1800+ together.
There is no doubt that without a Steadicam device or tripod video on a FF dslr is not fun especially at longer focal lengths.Both the mFT lenses at 300mm {600mm equiv} are distinctly poor at the long end not to mention dog slow.Once you mount on a tripod as most serious video makers do { outside the Steadicam sport and news shooters} then you have a wider choice of heavier but faster and far superior optics. There will be few D800e users hand holding a 300mm zoom with a TC making me suspect you are as much a FF shooter as I am an astronaut.
You pay for fast glass that is how it works.To match the AOV ,DOF and total light gathered by the Olympus 75-300 at the long end you need a 600mm F13 , so reasonable sized lenses like the 300mmF4 with a 2 x TC will work just fine.Save the FF shooter BS or at least read up on the facts
narutogrey, there are no micro-four-thirds teleconverters. A big advantage of Nikon is the huge number of FX-compatible lenses and accessories. A big disadvantage is the weight. Other system differences are tradeoffs, different strokes for different folks. The 7100 should sell very well to those who like the dated mirror technology.
I meant DX-compatible. Nikon’s terminology, like their backwards mounts, has always confused me.
Like ‘micro’ instead of ‘macro’ lenses? 😉
I do OWN the D800, 70-200VR2 and TC-20E III myself. A 7 pound combo including the battery grip and AA batteries (yes, all for that 1 extra fps in DX crop mode)
By “liberating” I refer to reduction in size and weight. The Nikon 7 pound combo screams for a monopod or tripod as support. Only on a gitzo 2 series or better you get close to getting 36 mp out of it.
While the 70-200VR2 is a great lens by itself, a decent lens with the 1.4x TC, it is a very average lens with the 2X TC at MFD. At distance it is simply below par. Having used this 7 pound combo on multiple photo trips I figured the resolution with the 2X TC, at 50 feet+ distance, is no better than cropping a shot made by the VR2/1.4x TC combo. At close distance it is decent enough however. This is a well known observation of the VR2.
This combo weights 3X and cost 3X more compared to the GH3/100-300 combo. is it really 3X better? No, not even for stills. For video the GH3 is indeed more than 3X better.
That wasn’t even remotely funny…
It’s almost as if Nikon saw those Four-Thirds users looking for a path from the E-system to something else. Since the D7100 is about the same size as the E-5, it’s the best choice for jumping ship.
It is actually a bit smaller and lighter than the E-5 with a vastly better sensor , the size of the E-5 was what helped to bury FT
Yep.
http://camerasize.com/compare/#202,7
Add the E-3 to that too. Both ridiculously sized cameras for their sensor.
I have the 100-300 for the reach.
The problem is, I have no desire for a 1.5 crop. My DSLR of choice is full frame. I can just carry a much smaller m43 to get that reach. I’m not going to ALSO down a DX crop, sitting in the middle of m43 and FF.
Shooting 600mm equivalent in FF (no crop) mode on an Nikon FX camera cost a fortune, I bet you know that what the 500/4 or 600/4 monsters cost 😉
While 1.5x is too small, A lot of long lens shooters actually like the 1.2x crop mode on the D800/E. The view finder image is still very big in 1.2x crop mode. and capturing 24.5MP at 5 fps is no slouch either.
That said I like the 100-300 enough that my only Nikon tele in the future might be the new light and small 70-200/4 VR.
The problem with your thinking { apart from there not being enough} is that to match the AOV,DOF and total light of a 500mm F4 you would need a 250mm f2.The closest to that is the 90-250 F2.8 from Olympus which costs around the same as the 500mm. As the other poster says above a 2 x TC on a FF gives the exact same DOF , AOV and total light as a lens on mFT 2x longer focal length and 2 stops better aperture which considering the fastest lens above 200mm{ equiv FF aov} is at F5.6 is not much of a challenge.
Have you seen any sports shooters throwing away their D4s and jumping on mFT , nope and you will not likely see this till the mFT sensor is two stops better, with fast C-AF and tracking along with genuine fast long quality lenses . I bet all those sports guys wish they had an Olympus 300mm F6.7 wow what a machine get a grip man ,
The problem with your thinking is that you are just repeating a ‘135 format advocacy’ argument without understanding when it is relevant and why it is totally irrelevant in many cases.
See, if you go buy a ‘full frame’ portrait lens, and follow the ‘rules’, you’ll end up with a 85mm lens, possibly f2.8 if you are very low on budget, more likely f1.8, and maybe f1.4 if you can really afford it. The most relevant item by far is working distance and framing since those determine ‘perspective’, and in that sense, those lenses are totally equivalent. There most certainly is going to be a difference in light admitted and DOF control, but neither of those change the fact that all 3 lenses serve the exact same primary uses, hence are for most cases regarded as equivalent, with the differences being especially relevant to corner cases.
If you want to take pictures of a scene 500 meters away, you’ll want a lens that gets you the required level of magnification, preferably as fast as you can afford. If you can’t afford that 300/2.8, but you can afford that 300/4, what are you going to do? Claim that it isn’t giving the same DOF control, so for most uses is not ‘equivalent’ ?
Hence for many (but not all) cases the comparison made by Nikon FX shooter is totally valid.
And no, if you are doing sports a lot you will at least for now not buy a m4/3 camera, but that has totally zero to do with ‘total amount of light’, and everything with C-AF/tracking performance.
Just for your information, a Canon 1Dmk4 uses a crop sensor (APS-H), specifically because smaller sensors have very significant advantages for sports photographers in terms of ‘reach’, cooling during sequential shooting and better read-out times.
More bollox from our marketing bart. Nobody worry, it is bollox as usual.
Who let you out of the asylum again? Don’t worry, emergency services have been informed.
Shut fart, it’s obvious where you come from…
fight fight fight fight fight! hehehehe
Barts a delusional blind fanbase of m43 and he cant see anything his bias doesnt let him see. He was a dslr fanboy and now he’s posing as a mirrorless fanboy. It’s de-eveolution at its finest.
Funny is laughing because he is playing with bollox!
Yes we know bollox hasn’t any. Just keep reminding us so we don’t forget.
It would seem bollox does not have any. Cannot make a comment either, must have hurt so much.
Pro sports / news shooter are not going give up D4 and D800 for their paid jobs.
But they may give up their D4 for a GH3 for their own vacation or family trips. that was my point. 🙂
That’s about it
“that to match the total light of a 500mm F4 you would need a 250mm f2.”
That is only true for m4/3, for the 4/3 the total light/sensor area is larger than for FF because of light fall off in the corners of the FF sensor.
Lol, who are they going to fool with this one.
“More zoom for the same lense”, “bigger crop factor”, “less resolution” you know what other cameras call this?
DIGITAL ZOOM. As this is something that’s not “Pro” enough, the marketing is trying a new naming for their DSLR.
It’s still blunt cropping and nothing more…
@Thyraz
The D800/D800e/D3X/D4 all have various crop modes , the tens of thousands of pros using them seem happy to use these non-pro cameras. The camera in crop mode frames the crop allowing for better live subject placement/framing ,it also typically gives a small boost in FPS. As to using Nikon lenses on a 2x crop there are no shortage of mFT users with ancient Nikon film lenses mounted on their mFT body with great results.It is just an extra feature that is don’t get upset by it lol. The fact is that there are numerous native and off brand long lenses available for a Nikon shooter many of which are faster and better than the mFT lenses above the 35-100 you have the slow 100-300 or the even slower 75-300 F6.7 . Also if you didn’t want to crop this way and want the full resolution just bolt on a 1.4x teleconvertor job done.
The insecurities of many mFT users is plain silly There seems to be a pressing need for some mFT users to push push push the mFT argument non stop the absolute bottom line is that the only significant advantage mFT holds is the size of the system especially the lenses
“The insecurities of many mFT users is plain silly There seems to be a pressing need for some mFT users to push push push the mFT argument non stop the absolute bottom line is that the only significant advantage mFT holds is the size of the system especially the lenses”
Well, if you are interested in video, or in sequential shooting, the ‘size’ advantage means that it is significantly easier to remove heat from the sensor, resulting in a potential quality advantage (because a sensor heating up introduces noise). If that is significant depends quite a bit on what you are using the camera for.
Indeed there are some m4/3 users who have this urge to ‘push’ the format regardless of situation and arguments. Somehow there are some people who must have their choices validated by everyone else making the same choice, and who regard anyone making a different choice as ‘the enemy’.
Of course, there is a small detail here that is often forgotten. There are some rather vocal users of 135 format cameras who insist on being extremely loud about how anything that isn’t ‘full frame’ (whatever that may mean) cannot be a serious camera ever, and how anyone not picking a ‘full frame’ camera can’t be serious about photography. This is clearly nonsense, but it does cause part of this ‘pushing’ of smaller formats to counter those rather loud 135 format ‘advocates’.
let me summarize for you…BYE BYE 43’S!!!!!!!!! LOL
43s or m43s?
theyre the same thing, man. you didnt believe everything olypano told you..did ya?
I believe in what I do. I have no relatives working for Panasonic, Olympus, Sony, Fuji, Leica Nikon nor Canon, and I don’t feel like I’m tied up with any brand at all. I look at results, and if I like them, and I need that body camera or lens and I can afford to buy it, I buy it. Brands can do their press releases, but they are just words to me. I tend to use my eyes. Smaller sensors, bigger sensors: I don’t care since I can take a nice photo.
The blogosphere doesn’t need you, then. Go out and take your damn photos in the real world. Let us here die of oxygen and Vitamin D deprivation while we argue ad infinitum about specifications, sensors, MTF data, equivalence, F stops, T stops, DOF, FOV, AOV, EVF vs OVF, LCD vs OLED, tilting vs fully articulated vs partially articulated vs fixed screens, optical vs software correction, primes vs zooms, RAW vs JPEG, JPEG superfine vs fine vs normal vs basic, AVCHD vs MP4 vs MOV, AA filter vs no AA filter vs partial AA filter, magnified view vs focus peaking, DSLR vs RF design, IBIS vs OIS, black vs silver vs two-tone vs non-standard colors, onboard flash vs accessory flash, Olympus vs Panasonic menus, Olympus vs Panasonic colors… And that’s just the start.
What do you have to say for yourself, Marco? I mean, how dare you go out and take photos and leave us here in this condition? How dare you use your camera to take photographs while we trawl through blogs, rumors, tests, press releases, hands-on announcement previews, hands-on previews with pre-production firmware sample images websized, hands-on previews with pre-production firmware sample images medium sized, extended previews with close to shipping firmware sample images almost full sized, in depth previews with shipping firmware sample images full(!)-sized, full reviews with shipping firmware image samples full sized and conclusion, user reviews, user complaints, user fanboyism, user buyer remorse, user forum tantrums, new rumors, new announcements, new cameras, new lenses… oh, the tragedy of it all!
Suit yourself, Marco. Take photos. See if we care. You’ll come to your senses, eventually. When you do, you know where to find us.
I care. Marco take great photos. He uses whatever he needs to take them. Fine with me. I know he takes great photos. I have taken the time to look.
Thank you Jim! (It’s quite difficult to take a bad photo in Venice: this damned city is a witch!)
@ISO1638400 when I’m not working and I’m not taking photos I like to check the web for infos and also to kill time. Not all posts are interesting to me, sometimes I leave a comment, other times not. Those few times when I expressed my opinion on a lens I put also a link to my Flickr account: not to show that I’m good in taking photos, but simply because I feel to prove my statements. So if you need to check if I take photos around, you can have a look. Many people here talk about things without having tried them. And to me it’s ok, since it’s their opinion, but I don’t like arrogant people who write in a non-constructive way (this last sentence is not specifically directed to you).
It’s okay, Marco. I hope you had the sarcasm detector in your browser turned on for my post. It’s true that many people get their mind made up for them by others, instead of trying the product out for themselves. I use both m4/3 and APS-C. Sometimes it’s as if I have to “defend” both, one, or the other. Well, it’s kinda stupid, really. They are just cameras, used to take images. But I also like cameras as gear and technology. It’s good to have a balanced view. But what counts is the final images. And whether you like them or not. Spec sheets don’t take images.
@Louvre
“You don’t take a photograph, you make it”
Ansel Adams
I’ll take his words over those of some anonymous poster with nothing to show for.
Thanks for demonstrating the exact point I made.
The insecurities of fart come up again… Are you going to be fired now?
I think you need to put a cork in yours. You’re beyond talking bolox!
Bollox hasn’t got any. Strange he picked that name.
LOL between Fart and Jim, who are obviously the same turd, we get the real story. Whoops I calles you turd, I hope you are not going away now.
You still haven’t got any. Bollox don’t return once lost.
Name calling, deliberate misspelling and silly assumptions posted as ‘truth’.
Thats some quality arguments there Bollox.
Hehe go on Jim D (D for dork?) alias Fart, you are funny. Has Olympus fired you yet? Or is it Panasonic?
Bollox hasn’t got any. Strange he picked that name
+100 diferent tools, diferent needs.
Says he who has to go to an 4/3 site an write Nikon propaganda! Who is the insecure one?
This isn’t a crop digital zoom. A crop would involve electronic readout of all of the pixels, followed by an operation to discard pixels not selected. This is a chip-supported alternate readout mode which allows for a higher readout rate of a small area of the sensor. To you, they’re the same, to an engineer, they are radically different things- a computational crop does not add functionality, a sensor readout mode change can drastically improve frame rate and readout speed.
And the difference between this and a m43 sensor is..? Cropping to m43 sensor size is still m43. You can cut a big pie into a smaller pie but you sure as heck cant cut a small pie into a bigger one. Its really simple math, you know simple math dont you?
@THYRAZ….THE SAME FOOLS WHO BELIEVE IN THE 43 SENSOR. Or are you too blind to see? Dont ask Olypanny for the truth, they wont give it to you, ask me, and I already gave you the truth. Believe it if you are smart, dont believe it if you are stupid. I have a feeling it’s the ladder for you.
More useless posts to generate hits. I ignored this site for a couple weeks. I guess I wasn’t missing anything.
LOL Why are you here again then?
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
“To bad the camera doesn’t take FT lenses, it would have become a nice FT camera!”
I respectfully disagree.
MFT is a transitional and ‘amateur’ sensor format.
Super 35 or it’s close cousin, APS-C are the HOT sensor sizes for the future of pro-sumer hybrids.
The key advantages being:
1) Sweet DOF ‘bokeh’ with wider lenses
2) Faster primes and zooms
3) Wider selection of ‘true’ wide lenses.
I can’t wait. Panasonic can keep the amateur market if they wish to own it.
So you are saying that people will leave ff and return to apsc. Yet all the reviews show that mFT is has caught up with and in some cases passed it. So why them is mFT amateurish. Or am I missing something?
“Super 35” ? Is this some new film? A 3D film?
I think you will find that APS-C is not the sweetspot.
Taking all factors into account, such as image quality and system weight, M43 is now the sweetspot.
If you require superior performance, FF is the way to go.
APS-C is now in no-man’s land and will inevitably lose popularity as FF prices continue to fall.
APS-C now has similar performance to M43 and weighs almost as much as FF… hardly the sweetspot.
FF body prices aren’t actually falling much at all. It’s that entry level or cheaper FF bodies are now available to the consumer, in the form of Nikon D600 and Canon 6D. Quality FF lenses though, are not any cheaper. Nor are they any smaller. The entry level FF bodies are a sales tactic. It’s Nikon’s and Canon’s way of testing the waters to gauge the market reaction. There is obviously more profits to be made in FF. Top quality FF lenses can cost up to 3-4 times as much as their APS-C counterparts. Will these upgraders invest in expensive FF lenses? Will they jump deep into the FF system? Or will they be typical consumer DSLR owners with nothing but a kit lens and maybe one prime, only now their camera has a larger sensor? Time will tell. But I think the factors of high cost, size and weight of FF lenses is too great a barrier for most consumers and even enthusiasts.
So APS-C/DX still has its place and will continue to for a long time, for the main reason of price vs performance. m4/3 sensor performance has caught up to APS-C but it will always lag the best APS-C sensors. For many users, m4/3 is good enough. For others, it isn’t. No need for fanboyism. APS-C sensors still have potential for improvements, even if they are small improvements. I expect camera makers for marketing purposes to push onto the market 36MP+ sensors in APS-C within the next 2-3 years. Given what Sony and Toshiba are able to do with high pixel count sensors, I would expect the technical quality to also improve, or at least, not get worse. So m4/3 will be forced again into the megapixel race as they were with the 16MP sensors (Panasonic engineers and imaging boss Uematsu wanted to keep the sensors at 12-14MP, and ideally an 8-10MP sensor for the GH2 to optimize video, but had to make the 16-18MP sensors for marketing reasons). You can read about that here:
http://www.eoshd.com/content/362/panasonic-g-series-dev-team-hints-at-rift-with-marketing
http://www.eoshd.com/content/492/how-engineering-can-triumph-over-marketing-a-solution
http://www.eoshd.com/content/9170/panasonic-gh3-real-world-test-pre-production-firmware
So don’t dismiss APS-C so soon. Even when FF mirrorless from Sony NEX (and possibly others) makes it onto the market, probably in 2014, it will be too expensive (and unproven) a system for most people. Camera makers don’t give up their bread and butter, especially when they are all struggling financially, as recent reports show.
Enjoy your gear and make use of it, whether it’s m4/3, APS-C, FF or whatever else.
Yes, yes and yes!
Well said 🙂
But it is the crop is 3:2 ratio from Nikon not the 4:3 CRT format
This 1.3 crop could be interesting if Nikon implemented it in a APS-C mirrorless camera.
I prefer on the fly cropping to cropping in PP. Saves time and enables one to capture the moment better. With these 12/16/24 Mpx sensors, there’s plenty of pixels to crop. I hope manufacturers will introduce improved cropping modes in the future models…
Much like you..when you get a large pie, you want to only eat a cropped version. Why pay more for more when you can pay ore for less? That’s your philosophy aint it?
I use primes and never crop: in my opinion it’s like a trick and I don’t like it. I prefer to change lenses if I have the time, otherwise I take some steps forward or back from the subject and compose. It’s a good training for composition. But these are just my 2 cents.
A cropped image may not be same as the one you’d get if you come closer or put another lens with different FOV. DOF, perspective, the relation of the subject and the background, all differs. And to me, the best composition is the one you think of on the spot, not several hours/days/months later in front of the screen.
Oh ok, I think I misunderstood: I agree with you about composition!
That Nikon D7100 is indeed very interesting as (among other interesting specs) it combines Nikon Pro AF capabilities (D4 hardware and algorithms) with the m4/3 2x crop factor. No doubt, Nikon implemented that feature with the m4/3 success in mind.
I’m currently running a D700 Nikon FX system (that is too big and heavy for my liking) and an OMD system (that is rather a bit too small for best handling). I’m waiting for the pro OMD with much improved continuous AF and high grade Oly zooms to arrive to compare that to a D7100 based DX system.
But I can imagine, size and weight and cost considered as well as performance, surpassing the D7100 (in 2x crop mode when necessary) combined with the new 70-200 f4 Nikkor Zoom for long lens shooting will be no easy task for Oly. But that’s the benchmark for now.
Seasoned Nikon users should know this is nothing new. I’ve been shooting a D2x in 2x crop mode for years. Taking 2 lbs off the body with this tiny new 7100 does little to mitigate the lens size. Nikon’s 80-400 weighs almost 3x Oly’s 70-300 II.
Yes, I know that (the D2x crop mode delivered less than 8mp, IIRC).
But the new 70-200 f4 lens (that turns into a 140-400mm equivalent in 2x crop mode) weighs something around 800g and its optical quality is in a completely different league compared to any m4/3 tele zoom that is available today. Yes, it’s also twice as costly. You get what you pay for 🙂
The 70-400 F4 doesn’t look that great at the long end. And still too short at 400mm equivalent.
http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/nikon70-200f4vr/tloader.htm
I’ve seen that and I wonder what slrgear have done. Maybe tested at very short focusing distance? IAC, they stand alone with that verdict.
All the other reviews I’ve found confirm what Nikon’s MTF charts say, that the 70-200 f4 is getting better at increasing focal lengths and is at its best at 200mm. Better than Nikon’s own 70-200 f2.8. And that matches my own experience.
Just use your feet instead of being so lazy man. Such a lazy photographer..if you are one at all.
I agree wt. those who say that threads like this are severely misleading. The only way m4/3 could be challenged is by the combined effect of lens AND sensor resolution.
What is fairly evident is that m4/3 lenses have excellent resolution, and sensors are up to scratch.
So where is the excitement? Or must we be entertained with fantasies, while waiting for the real announcements?
Reminds me of the clowns’ performances at the Circus, while waiting for the Tigers 🙂
You really have too much time on your hands.
Pot, kettle.
LOL True! I thought he was talking about gay tigers waiting to perform in a circus.
HUH??? dude, I have NO idea what you just said.
Change pusher dude…
That sensor plus no AA filter makes for some sexy times, oh yeah. Too bad no fixed rear screen. :/
Actually its not new.
Nikon D2x had “high speed crop mode” which was, guess what?
Yea 2x .. (and it was really fast – 8 FPS).
Wow. Nearly as fast as an OMD, well fancy that! Whatever next.
how is the 1.3x mode any different then just cropping?
convenience, exif info, metering, video, filesize, processing speed in camera AND pc, and fps.
It’s going to be quite inconvenient using a small APSC viewfinder in crop mode.
how is that relevant.
yeah, why do they provide viewfinders to begin with… silly people who want to actually compose a picture, totally irrelevant.
For an EVF with sensor crop you get the whole image. For OVF you can only use the center of the display as it is a portion of the OVF view. Hence small image comment
If implemented correctly, only the pixels that are in the new crop area are active. This will reduce battery use and heat generated by the sensor. It also allows for faster FPS (FRAMES PER SECOND). This will allow easier framing and also allow for faster post processing as you will not have to crop your image; important if you are in serious production,but you can make a macro to auto crop;.
There is one possible downside, but only if you really take mega shoots (if you are in constant production), the sensor part that is used may change differently from the other the non used part. I was told that by a camera company rep, from one of the big two. If you shoot that much you will make a lot of money.
For most it is not much of an advantage though.
The real advantage of (micro) four thirds is even resolution across the frame. That is, you can more easily design the lenses to achieve that.
That is the main advantage, and you can easily see it when adapting wides. On APS you will have colour shifts, vignetting at the edges, and resolution dropping, that you avoid with the narrower format.
That was the original *aim* of the format. Perhaps people new to it haven’t yet learned it.
Also, for composition purposes I find the shorter format more harmonious, i.e. it allows me to avoid cropping most of the times.
The main reason for adopting it however is the first one: evenness across the frame.
Nikon really put in a sleeper feature in the D5200 which shares the same Toshiba sensor as the D7100. To add to the high stills quality, it’s overperforming for its sub $800 price as an HD video cam, according to tests already on the web.
http://www.eoshd.com/content/9653/nikon-d5200-review
http://www.eoshd.com/content/9713/nikon-d5200-vs-canon-5d-mark-iii
While GH3 has advantages in handling, ergonomics, weather-sealing and other features, the D5200 looks to be great bargain alternative for those wanting to do high quality stills and video. Being a consumer model, the D5200 body price will drop fairly quickly too. At a $600-700 body price, I would rather get this than the GH2/3 or E-M5 for HD video. Hey Olympus, Nikon D5200 has both NTSC and PAL framerates right from day one! (though no 60/50p)
Competition is good. The Panasonic GH3 will most certainly get a pricedrop soon. Then all the GH3 complainers can get the GH3 that they couldn’t previous afford and it will be the best camera ever.
The only problem is Nikon cameras do not Auto Focus in video mode. The video mode AF on the D800/E, and the D600, is a joke compared to even the GH2. GH3 is one light year ahead of all the Nikons in this regard.
It’s a problem Nikon would tackle in their APS-C mirrorless line up. but not now.
Yeah, Nikon video AF so far has been poor. Their video side is a bonus rather than a central feature. The potential is there, especially IQ wise, but video is not their focus (pun intended) for the DSLRs right now. But at least now when people think DSLR video, they can add Nikon in there along with Canon EOS and Panasonic GH2/3. For serious work, you’d probably still go with the latter two.
If you used that (Toshiba?)sensor in a 4/3 camera you could get an uncropped 1:1 aspect ratio image.
You could get one with equal, exactly equal ease with the current sensor.
@ Richard
“that to match the total light of a 500mm F4 you would need a 250mm f2.”
That is only true for m4/3, for the 4/3 the total light/sensor area is larger than for FF because of light fall off in the corners of the FF sensor.
The long telephoto lenses from Nikon or Canon are excellent from wide open as that is what they are designed for. The FT sensor is the exact same size as the mFT sensor so it applies just the same . You are best to stick to the Olympus dslr forum on DPreview if you want to post bull, the half dozen FT shooters left will defend you to the hilt no matter how stupid your point.
@ISO1638400 yes, I thought it was sarcasm, I read some other comments from you and they were quite interesting. Like you, I don’t understand why some people feel they have to “defend” their gear. To each one their own: I love m43 quality and portability, it’s enough for me to print cover books, CD album covers for artists and do some photo journalism. If I had to take pictures at birds or sport cars I would choose DSLRs. For some “zen” shot I’d choose Leica. And now I can’t wait to try (maybe buy) new Fuji x100s. I’m a photography fanboy 😉