Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 24, 2010, 11:58 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

Jim there is a difference with the m4/3 system, they correct for the lens better then the nex, so the end results is softer image with the nex. Now the samsung has the best pancake on the market, for the nx100. The lens ir really nice and does a great job according the a bunch of german photo magazines and review sites.
__________________
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 Oct 24, 2010, 12:19 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

But if we where comparing angle, the 17 2.8 would not be close, actually with m4/3 the new panny 14 2.5 would be closer to the sony 16 2.8. And if you compare the wide angles, the panny again is still a much sharper lens. And my low light math is still valid, just not a 2 stop advantage, more of a 1 1/3 stop.
__________________
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 Oct 24, 2010, 1:48 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
penolta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California USA
Posts: 5,206
Default

FWIW Sony uses a new mirrorless technology (a fixed translucent "mirror", eliminating the moving true mirror) in their new a33 and a55 Alphas, which have an EVF and a more conventional slr like form factor. Many more lens choices (all Minolta slr and Sony dslr mounts, incl. Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina) than are available in the NEX proprietary e-mounts. Larger than the NEX, but smaller and lighter than typical DSLRs, and giving the same continuous live viewing, metering, focusing and shooting as the NEX, with only a slight loss of light for the viewfinder.

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/...2#/panel_prod1

The NEX cameras have been so successful that they have diverted the supply of sensors from the new Alpha 560/580, causing shortages and delayed introductions of some of those cameras.
__________________
.
.
If life brings you lemons, you can make lemonade.

Last edited by penolta; Oct 24, 2010 at 2:16 PM.
penolta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2010, 2:35 PM   #14
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
But if we where comparing angle, the 17 2.8 would not be close, actually with m4/3 the new panny 14 2.5 would be closer to the sony 16 2.8. And if you compare the wide angles, the panny again is still a much sharper lens. And my low light math is still valid, just not a 2 stop advantage, more of a 1 1/3 stop.
That must be the "new math". I missed those classes. ;-)

You're still looking at a difference in angle of view (with the Sony 16mm giving you the same angle of view you'd get using a 24mm lens on a 35mm camera, and the Panasonic 14mm giving you the same angle of view you'd have using a 28mm lens on a 35mm camera. 24 versus 28mm can make a difference fitting what you want to get into the frame, depending on what you're trying to shoot.

I also wouldn't be too sure it's sharper than the Sony. I haven't seen any professional reviews testing that new Panasonic lens yet, and I'm already seeing some comments in forums elsewhere about corner softness, based on looking at some of the new dpreview.com samples (and they should have a test online at some point). I'd wait until the tests are in.

As for your math computing the advantages taking stabilization into consideration for low light shooting, that depends on the subject type. Stabilization won't help with blur from subject movement; and the last time I used the Sony 16mm f/2.8 in low light, it was at ISO 3200 at shutter speeds of around 1/100 second shooting live music on a dimly lit tavern stage. That's still a bit slow for freezing much movement (requiring you to carefully time your shots to increase your percentage of keepers). But, those are hardly the shutter speeds you'd need stabilization with in a lens that wide (and it wouldn't help with blur from subject movement anyway).

The print/viewing sizes needed also come into the equation (and sometimes size/weight concerns, LCD usability, system price and more might outweigh something like corner softness differences when pixel peeping at 100% viewing size). ;-)

There are pros and cons to any solution. I think the OP probably understands the differences in technology, and he'll need to decide what system and focal lengths make more sense for types of shooting he does more often.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2010, 2:47 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by penolta View Post
FWIW Sony uses a new mirrorless technology (a fixed translucent "mirror", eliminating the moving true mirror) in their new a33 and a55 Alphas, which have an EVF and a more conventional slr like form factor. Many more lens choices (all Minolta slr and Sony dslr mounts, incl. Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina) than are available in the NEX proprietary e-mounts. Larger than the NEX, but smaller and lighter than typical DSLRs, and giving the same continuous live viewing, metering, focusing and shooting as the NEX, with only a slight loss of light for the viewfinder.

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/...2#/panel_prod1

The NEX cameras have been so successful that they have diverted the supply of sensors from the new Alpha 560/580, causing shortages and delayed introductions of some of those cameras.
The new translucent mirror cameras are not significantly smaller that a regular DSLR since the depth from flange to focal plane is the same as with a regular SLR, the real advantage of these cameras is that they can use the same focusing system as a regular DSLR (the much faster phase system) while offering full time live view. The advantages of this include much faster and more accurate focus for video as well as for live view. These cameras may be the next evolutionary step since they meld the advantages of live view and video with the traditional strength of the SLR's focus sensors. They do not have any size advantage however and therefore belong in a different category from the ILCs.

I own three nice Minolta Maxxum lenses so one of these new alpha cameras like the a33 or a55 would be a great camera for me, but it would still not supply me with the portability an ILC with a prime lens would.

Right now an Olympus E-P1 is at a low price with the 16mm and an optical viewfinder. This would give me a very nice 34mm field of view (just wide enough for general purpose photography, many Leica photographers preferred the 35mm lens since it offered great flexibility), image stabilization in-body, an optical viewfinder for when the light makes the LCD hard to see (or for places where the screen would be a distraction) and access to a low cost adapter for my K-mount lenses (yes, all manual but that is not a big deal). Since I rarely use flash the lack of a built in flash is not an issue for me, I would prefer the sturdier build of the E-P1 over the included flash of the E-PL1.

Any comments?
__________________
Ira
Riverview, NB, Canada
http://aicphotography.blogspot.com/
_______________________________
Current equipment
Pentax K5, K3:
FA 35mm f2, FA 50 f1.4, FA 28-70mm f4, FA 28-80mm f3.5-5.6, F 50mm f1.7, Tamron SP 70-200mm f2.8 Di, DA 10-17 f3.5-4.5, DA 14 f2.8, DA 16-45mm f4, DA 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 WR, DA 50-200mm f4-5.6 WR, AF-540FGZ

Olympus E-P2, E-P5, OM-D E-M1: 9mm to 150mm lenses

_______________________________

Last edited by Monza76; Oct 24, 2010 at 2:54 PM.
Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2010, 5:57 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
penolta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California USA
Posts: 5,206
Default

Quote:
The new translucent mirror cameras are not significantly smaller that a regular DSLR since the depth from flange to focal plane is the same as with a regular SLR
I did not mean to suggest that one would be a substitute for the other, nor that the NEX is not significantly smaller - only to point out that the ILCs are not the only cameras that have eliminated the DSLR mirror. That being so, it should not be the sole reason to buy one.

Not to be argumentative, but to avoid misinterpretation, if one goes on Sony's published measurements, then the a55 is 1/2" (12-13 mm) smaller in width and height than the a580, its megapixel DSLR equivalent, and nearly 7 oz (190 gms / 26%) lighter (due to the absence of the mirror mechanism), which in a fairly compact camera, some would consider significant. The Nex5 is 1/2" (13 mm) narrower than the a55, but 1 1/4" (33 mm) shorter, due to the absence of the viewfinder, and slightly over 7 oz (210 gms) lighter in part due to the lack of the mirror mechanism and viewfinder. The body itself is significantly thinner, but perhaps less so than the measurements might indicate, as they do not include the grips, which provide additional thickness beyond the flange to focal plane distance. I have held a NEX5, and the grip did feel smaller than that of a DSLR, but it is still significantly thicker than the body.

Will Pentax produce an ILC? Not in the immediate future, I would think - their current R&D and production capacity (not to mention market share) may not be able to support the effort unless sales were to increase dramatically. I do not expect that the ILC will replace the DSLR, so a wiser course for them might be to concentrate on their strength and wait to see whether that market segment looks as if it will remain viable beyond the initial surge, or if it will prove to be another novelty with a limited life.
They could conceivably move to a fixed pellicle mirror system, which, BTW, is not original with Sony - it was introduced on a film SLR some years ago, but never really caught on then. Will it now? We shall see. These are interesting times.
__________________
.
.
If life brings you lemons, you can make lemonade.

Last edited by penolta; Oct 24, 2010 at 6:06 PM.
penolta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2010, 6:01 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

Let remember none of these cameras are design for action. So sony at 6400 iso at 16mm 2.8, to oly at 1600iso at 14mm 2.5 is a 1 2/3 stop of iso preformance for the sony as is with out any IS. So if the oly IS can provide 2-3 stop of performance. That will make up the 1 2/3 stops in iso the sony has in a low light. Giving only on a static shot a edge. Math still is the same as the 1.7.

I like the sony, but it uses OIS vs IBIS. And the pancake from sony do not have OIS like the 18-55mm.
__________________
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.

Last edited by shoturtle; Oct 24, 2010 at 6:07 PM.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2010, 6:06 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by penolta View Post
I did not mean to suggest that one would be a substitute for the other, nor that the NEX is not significantly smaller - only to point out that the ILCs are not the only cameras that have eliminated the DSLR mirror. That being so, it should not be the sole reason to buy one.

Not to be argumentative, but to avoid misinterpretation, if one goes on Sony's published measurements, then the a55 is 1/2" (12-13 mm) smaller in width and height than the a580, its megapixel DSLR equivalent, and nearly 7 oz (190 gms / 26%) lighter (due to the absence of the mirror mechanism), which in a fairly compact camera, some would consider significant. The Nex5 is 1/2" (13 mm) narrower than the a55, but 1 1/4" (33 mm) shorter, due to the absence of the viewfinder, and slightly over 7 oz (210 gms) lighter in part due to the lack of the mirror mechanism and viewfinder. The body itself is significantly thinner, but perhaps less so than the measurements might indicate, as they do not include the grips, which provide additional thickness beyond the flange to focal plane distance. I have held a NEX5, and the grip did feel smaller than that of a DSLR, but it is still significantly thicker than the body.

Will Pentax produce an ILC? Not in the immediate future, I would think - their current R&D and production capacity (not to mention market share) may not be able to support the effort unless sales were to increase dramatically. I do not expect that the ILC will replace the DSLR, so a wiser course for them might be to concentrate on their strength and wait to see whether that market segment looks as if it will remain viable beyond the initial surge, or if it will prove to be another novelty with a limited life.
I agree on all points, all I meant in my post was that I think the new Sony a33 and a55 may actually be a new direction for DSLRs since video is becoming a significant factor for many owners, here are cameras that do everything well (more or less).
__________________
Ira
Riverview, NB, Canada
http://aicphotography.blogspot.com/
_______________________________
Current equipment
Pentax K5, K3:
FA 35mm f2, FA 50 f1.4, FA 28-70mm f4, FA 28-80mm f3.5-5.6, F 50mm f1.7, Tamron SP 70-200mm f2.8 Di, DA 10-17 f3.5-4.5, DA 14 f2.8, DA 16-45mm f4, DA 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 WR, DA 50-200mm f4-5.6 WR, AF-540FGZ

Olympus E-P2, E-P5, OM-D E-M1: 9mm to 150mm lenses

_______________________________
Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2010, 6:28 PM   #19
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by penolta View Post
I do not expect that the ILC will replace the DSLR, so a wiser course for them might be to concentrate on their strength and wait to see whether that market segment looks as if it will remain viable beyond the initial surge, or if it will prove to be another novelty with a limited life.
What I've found interesting is how well the NEX models are doing in the BCN rankings for Japan. Here's a link translated via google for September:

http://translate.google.com/translat...015_18375.html

Japan is usually a very weak market for Sony's dSLR models, which is how these new models are being grouped within the BCN rankings (Sony does much better when you look at worldwide marketshare versus sales in Japan, as they tend to do much better in Europe and elsewhere). So, the BCN rankings surprise me. But, whether or not it's sustainable remains to be seen.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2010, 6:53 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
penolta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California USA
Posts: 5,206
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimC View Post
What I've found interesting is how well the NEX models are doing in the BCN rankings for Japan.
Sony was supposed to bring the new a560 to the US market and withhold the a580. These share sensors with the a33 and a55, respectively. The success of the NEX cameras surpassed Sony's projections by so much, that the demand for the a33 worldwide has caused such a shortage of that sensor that Sony reversed itself and brought the a580 to the US instead, much to the delight of those here who preferred it over the lower model.
__________________
.
.
If life brings you lemons, you can make lemonade.
penolta 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 4:25 PM.