Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

View Poll Results: Will the Evil equal or replace the DSLR
It will match it but not replace it 0 0%
It will replace it 4 19.05%
It will be it's own thing along side DSLR, Bridge, and P&S 14 66.67%
No Clue 3 14.29%
Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 1, 2010, 11:13 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
Every EVIL model available today attempts to correct the shortcomings of the available lenses (vignetting, rectilinear distortion, sharpness, etc.) and they do it in such a way that you can't turn it off. They correct rectilinear distortion by playing with the pixels which results in an even greater loss of sharpness in areas where the lens isn't very sharp to start with. Then they try to compensate for this lack of sharpness by cranking up the "sharpness" which just increases the contrast which has negative effects all by itself.
You CAN turn it off by selecting RAW.
dnas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2010, 11:19 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
dSLR lenses are designed to focus on an image sensor a certain distance away, and so won't work on an EVIL body. If they use the same lenses, then the bodies will have to be big enough to accomodate a mirror box, and nothing would be gained by having an EVIL body.

Yes, you can use DSLR lenses with a micro 4/3 body. You can use some Olympus 4/3 lenses with a micro 4/3 body, with an adapter.

You can also use just about any SLR lens with a micro 4/3 body.
dnas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2010, 9:51 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dnas View Post
You CAN turn it off by selecting RAW.
Correct, however ...

From Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 ED Review / Test Report - Analysis:

"Micro 4/3 JPEGs as well as RAWs converted via standard RAW converters such as Photoshop apply an auto-correction of distortions ... However, when using DCRaw to convert the camera RAWs you can actually get access to the uncorrected RAW file. We measured a whopping 4.6% of barrel distortions at 14mm which is very extreme."

From Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS - Review / Test Report - Analysis:

"Micro-4/3 files - both RAW as well as JPEGs - are automatically corrected either in the camera (JPEG) or in RAW converters (like Silkypix or Adobe Camera RAW). ... That said it is possible to use e.g. DCRaw in order to have a look at the uncorrected data. Technically Lumix lens shows a very poor performance regarding distortions specifically at the wide-end of the zoom range here. At 14mm we've a whopping ~5.5% of barrel distortion and it's not really much better at 18mm (~4.1%)."

"As mentioned in the introduction your G1 RAWs may not always be as RAW as they may appear - or to be precise: the RAW processing. The Panasonic G1 RAW files contains unprocessed image data (more or less) but neither Adobe ACR/DNG nor Silkypix will give you access to it - reads: distortions, vignetting and lateral CAs are pre-processed. ..."
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2010, 10:01 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dnas View Post
Yes, you can use DSLR lenses with a micro 4/3 body. You can use some Olympus 4/3 lenses with a micro 4/3 body, with an adapter.

You can also use just about any SLR lens with a micro 4/3 body.
True. There adapters to mount just about any lens to just about any body. My point was that a smaller EVIL system relies on the fact that there's no mirror box. Using an adapter increases the size of the system to what would be required to accomodate the mirror box, reducing the desireablility, maybe even the utility of an EVIL camera body.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2010, 4:47 PM   #15
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

The quest is always for the best possible quality in the smallest possible package. EVILs have a potential advantage over DSLRs in this regard.

The best quality available from a 35mm full-frame sensor at this time is the Leica M9, very largely due to the Leica M-mount lenses being the finest camera lenses ever made.

Designing a lens mount from scratch allows some flexibility and particularly with respect to wide angle lenses diminishes the need for retro-focus lenses, which can dramatically improve quality (see the Leica M-mount for proof). The downside is that there can be more vignetting and the angle of the light is more extreme, so the sensors need to be more advanced, but things are moving very much in the right direction.

But where Leica can go for $7000, Nikon and Canon can follow for half the price, just give them time. :-)

We will doubtless see EVILs at a whole range of sensor sizes. Canon is rumored to have a 2.4x crop EVIL ready for imminent release. There is M4/3. The new Samsung at 1.5x crop. A FF 35mm will come in time and I will almost certainly be getting one and ditching my SLR.

An SLR has nothing that I want or need, except at the moment a FF sensor at a reasonable price. I would rather have a Leica but it's a bit too pricey for me, and getting worse as Sterling continues its steady fall.

I would certainly rather have a M4/3 than a G11. Sony, Nikon and Canon will all soon be entering the fray. I am looking forward to these developments with great eagerness.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2010, 4:55 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

That is a good point, the evil may replace the high end bridge camea. The new oly epl1 is not that much more then g11.

But the lecia can be upwards of 30k with the R and S mounts. I got to play with one couple months ago. They really are all that, with a price tag to match.

My wife love the M series for 7k. But it is really just to pricey for a hobby. I can get another motorcycle for that price.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2010, 5:06 PM   #17
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Haha, my wife would much rather I spend the money on a Leica than a motorcycle. In fact I have a sneaky trick; whenever I want to buy a new camera I start making noises about getting a motorcycle again.

She says that dads shouldn't ride motorcycles, and I say you're right I should rather spend it on cameras. No one ever fell off a camera and killed themselves.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2010, 5:11 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

Well my wife rides also, she relates with me when I think about getting a new motorcycle. So she agrees 7k plus lenses, or get a new bike, the bike has the edge in my family.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2010, 5:31 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
Correct, however ...

From Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 ED Review / Test Report - Analysis:

"Micro 4/3 JPEGs as well as RAWs converted via standard RAW converters such as Photoshop apply an auto-correction of distortions ... However, when using DCRaw to convert the camera RAWs you can actually get access to the uncorrected RAW file. We measured a whopping 4.6% of barrel distortions at 14mm which is very extreme."

From Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS - Review / Test Report - Analysis:

"Micro-4/3 files - both RAW as well as JPEGs - are automatically corrected either in the camera (JPEG) or in RAW converters (like Silkypix or Adobe Camera RAW). ... That said it is possible to use e.g. DCRaw in order to have a look at the uncorrected data. Technically Lumix lens shows a very poor performance regarding distortions specifically at the wide-end of the zoom range here. At 14mm we've a whopping ~5.5% of barrel distortion and it's not really much better at 18mm (~4.1%)."

"As mentioned in the introduction your G1 RAWs may not always be as RAW as they may appear - or to be precise: the RAW processing. The Panasonic G1 RAW files contains unprocessed image data (more or less) but neither Adobe ACR/DNG nor Silkypix will give you access to it - reads: distortions, vignetting and lateral CAs are pre-processed. ..."
That's true, but I use another RAW converter when I want uncorrected results. For example, the micro 4/3 14-45mm lens from Panasonic is quite sharp, quite a bit sharper than most GOOD kit lenses, and the curvature of field is negligible. (You said both of these are a problem on ALL micro 4/3 lenses, but this is not the case for THIS lens)
It DOES have a lot of barrel distortion(at the wide end) and a little CA & vignetting, which are all corrected with in camera (Panasonic) electronics. Obviously, Panasonic decided to sacrifice barrel distortion, CA & vignetting, but concentrate on SHARPNESS, which is the only one of the 4 that you cannot actually correct for. The results are surprisingly good.

I've done some tests on this lens, with and without correction, and the lens itself is more like 12-45mm. The distortion correction stretches and crops the corners to the same field of view as a 14-45mm. In situations where the distortion is not a factor in a shot, you can get 12mm (24mm equivalent wide) out of the camera. Then you can correct for CA and vignetting if necessary.

As for distortions, the Canon 18-55mm IS (a top rated kit lens) has barrel distortion of 3.2%, the Nikon 18-55mm 2.7%, and the Nikon 18-70mm 3.5%(but all left uncorrected). Personally, the results from these lenses (regarding photos of buildings, and shots with straight lines) look inferior to the results from the Panasonic G1/GH1/GF1 with the in camera distortion correction.

Look, I know you think the format is rubbish, but I think it's smart design and the results are better than you make them out to be.

Last edited by dnas; Feb 2, 2010 at 5:39 PM.
dnas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2010, 5:38 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

This entire discussion will be academic once the EVIL overcomes it's present problems. Once it does, it's advantages are to great to believe that the mirror will remain. As for lenses, they will either use the larger bodies or create new ones.

This electronic technology is absolutely awesome as a direct aid to photographers (at the moment this potenital has not been realized). The mirror box will hang around a bit until old timers are all dead, and then it will be a curiosity, much like a wind up watch.

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:51 PM.