The OLYMPUS M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 17-2020mm 150: 400 TC 1X IS PRO lens was announced on November 4.5, 1.25.
- For Olympus Mirrorless Cameras Micro 4/3
- Maximum aperture ratio: 1: 4.5
- Focal length: 150-400 mm (EGF 300-800 mm)
- Built teleconverter with a magnification of 1.25, which makes it possible to obtain a FR of 187.5-500 mm (EGF 375-1000)
- MDF: 1.3 meters (with teleconverter)
- Maximum magnification ratio: 1:2.78 (500 mm, with teleconverter)
- Built-in Image Stabilizer with 4.5 stops. With the function of stabilization on the sensor up to 8 steps
- Optical design: 28 elements in 18 groups (7/4 teconverter), includes 1 EDA, 4 Super ED, 2 ED, 2 HR, 1 HD
- Filter Diameter: 95 mm
- Aperture blades: 9 pieces
- Protected enclosure
- Tripod foot
- Weight: 1875 gram
- Price: about 7.500 dollars. All prices for modern Olympus lenses are available see here
All OLYMPUS / OM SYSTEM M.ZUIKO DIGITAL lenses for Micro 4/3
- 8mm 1: 1.8 FISHEYE PRO
- 9mm 1: 8 FISHEYE
- 12mm 1: 2 ED MSC
- 15mm 1: 8
- 17mm 1: 1.2 PRO
- 17mm 1: 1.8 MSC
- 17mm 1: 2.8
- 20mm 1: 1.4 PRO OM SYSTEM
- 25mm 1: 1.2 PRO
- 25mm 1: 1.8 MSC
- 30mm 1: 3.5 ED MSC MACRO 1.25X
- 45mm 1: 1.2 PRO
- 45mm 1: 1.8 MSC
- 60mm 1: 2.8 ED MSC MACRO
- 75mm 1: 1.8 ED MSC
- 90mm 1:3.5 MACRO IS PRO OM SYSTEM
- 300mm 1: 4 IS PRO
- 7-14mm 1: 2.8 PRO
- 8-25mm 1: 4 PRO
- 9-18mm 1:4-5.6 ED
- 12-40mm 1: 2.8 PRO
- 12-45mm 1: 4 PRO
- 12-50mm 1: 3.5-6.3 EZ ED MSC MACRO
- 12-100mm 1: 4 IS PRO
- 12-200mm 1:3.5-6.3 ED MSC
- 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 ED
- 14-42mm 1: 3.5-5.6 L ED
- 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 MSC II
- 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 R MSC II
- 14-42mm 1: 3.5-5.6 EZ ED MSC
- 14-150mm 1:4-5.6 ED
- 14-150mm 1:4-5.6 ED MSC II
- 40-150mm 1: 2.8 PRO
- 40-150mm 1: 4 PRO
- 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 ED MSC
- 40-150mm 1: 4-5.6 R ED MSC
- 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 ED MSC
- 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 ED MSC II
- 100-400mm 1:5-6.3 IS ED MSC
- 150-400mm 1: 4.5 TC 1.25X ED IS PRO
Decoding of the main markings of OLYMPUS lenses M.ZUIKO DIGITAL for Micro 4/3:
- PRO - professional lens
- SPLASH PROOF - a protected lens (so are marked, for example, all 'PRO'-lenses)
- OM SYSTEM is the trademark under which some Olympus lenses have been produced since the end of 2021
- ED (Extra-low Dispersion) - low dispersion elements in the optical circuit
- MSC (Movie & Still Compatible) - a special focusing system for comfortable video and photography
- EZ (Electronic Zoom) - electronic zoom
- IS (Image Stabilizer) - built-in image stabilizer
- MACRO - macro lens
- Fisheye - ultra wide angle fisheye lens
- R (?) - lens with an updated design
- II - second version of the lens
- TC - built-in teleconverter
- 9mm 1:8 FISHEYE and 15mm 1:8 (MF) lenses do not have auto focus
All Olympus Micro 4/3 cameras
Olympus Pen EP Series:
Olympus OM-D EM Series:
- M1, M1 Mark II, M1 Mark III
- M5, M5 MARK II, M5 MARK III
- M10, M10 Mark II, M10 Mark III, M10 Mark IV
OM SYSTEM line:
Materials on the topic
- Full frame mirrorless systems... Discussion, choice, recommendations.
- Cropped mirrorless systems... Discussion, choice, recommendations.
- Cropped mirrorless systems that have stopped or are no longer developing
- Digital SLR systems that have stopped or are no longer developing
- JVI or EVI (an important article that answers the question 'DSLR or mirrorless')
- About mirrorless batteries
- Simple and clear medium format
- High-speed solutions from Chinese brands
- All fastest autofocus zoom lenses
- All fastest AF prime lenses
- Mirrored full frame on mirrorless medium format
- Autofocus Speed Boosters
- One lens to rule the world
- The impact of smartphones on the photography market
- What's next (smartphone supremacy)?
- All announcements and novelties of lenses and cameras
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram | Assistance of the Armed Forces
What a horse
Olik himself advertises his technique as more compact:
So yes, depending on which telescope to compare with)) But holding a 2-kilogram XNUMX (for a mirror) in my hands and having a micra available, it never occurred to me to put such a lens there)))
Comparison of dimensions with Olympus ED 300mm 4.0 IS PRO M.Zuiko Digital (pictured - with hood) and Panasonic Vario-Elmar 100-400mm f / 4.0-6.3 Asph DG:
I wonder how much battery power does it consume? )
I don't think there are many, or that there will be any serious problems with this. So I recently shot on a huge Sigma 60-600 S (weighs one and a half times more than this Olik), I did not notice at all that she somehow took an abnormally much energy, the same applies to the overwhelming number of lenses with af and stub
I'm interested in another thing - how many Radozhivs' readers will actually buy this glass.
Even if no one is okay
If you look at the prices of lenses of this class on FF, the price tag already starts to seem more adequate.
But for statistics, personally, I definitely won't buy, although I own the system - there is no need and extra funds.
On January 31, they went on sale in the Olympus store in Moscow for 599 thousand. Today, February 3, they are no longer there.
Non-removable foot? Is the converter being driven into its base?
Yeah, in the tail, there are relatively small glasses. Well, I wonder what. If I were a better-off tourist, I would assemble the system.
non-removable, built-in converter, it is switched to active position with a large mechanical lever
Well, Canon has 200-400 according to the same principle, but there is a protrusion for the converter in the off position, but here it is not visible, I thought that they were being driven into the paw. And it looks like there is enough room in the back to take the converter out of the field of view of the lens.
Arkady, they write that the bracket is removable.
Well, there is also a double converter for this lens. In combination with the built-in converter, 2000 FR is obtained at a 35-mm equivalent.
And minus 2 stops of luminosity ...
Vyacheslav has already managed to get it for the test. A very interesting thing and a very emotional story
He swings it so boldly and the bayonet does not fall out)
Excellent glass considering optical qualities, size and weight. Although I couldn't run too long with this. I tried to run with Tair 3 - such a pleasure for myself, but he seemed to be a pound lighter.
Sadly, some bulging-eyed reviewers are in a hurry to compare it to its full-frame counterparts. Although the lens looks very decent, there are some subtleties, like a 1-2 stop loss in iso for full-frame cameras, the fact that a 2-focal teleconverter will add, but eat up another 2 stops of aperture. But no matter how bland in terms of exposure, we still have a gain in weight and dimensions with excellent picture quality. And he will be working and sharp, with an open mind, in this respect I have no doubts.
I myself, as the owner of microra and Olympus in particular, will never buy such glass for myself, somehow, unnecessarily, such wild TV sets and the price tag is far from amateur. But Olympus is great for releasing this glass, although the future of the system is still vague.
Yes, I would not say that Olik's future is vague. In my opinion, quite definite:
Well, let's see what happens next. In a sense, it doesn't matter to me anymore, because In principle, I have two carcasses and almost all the focal ones are blocked, only the super-width is not enough, but this is a profitable business, I think I will close it this year.
I thought I would jump off the system when the news came out, but then I forgot it, besides, it turned out that there was not much to jump off with. And changing the system is a huge loss of money without a tangible profit. Micra can be said to be a complete system, a lot of glasses for every taste and budget. The new one can be bought for a few more years, then for another ten years all this will be available on the secondary housing. Well, it seems like there is still Panas, but for a photo it's not so interesting.
I don’t know what the business rules are, but in my opinion, they shouldn’t have announced the transfer of the division to the whole world in advance. Judging by the thematic sites, the reaction of people was unequivocal - Olympus - everything. And no matter how much you do not roll out more cool products, you still cannot convince people. When they see that JIP will do everything right (suppose such an outcome) and the product line will develop and gain stability - then, yes. Until then, even fans of the system will likely wait. They had to quietly and calmly do all this, come to an agreement, arrange everything, and only then quickly formalize everything so that the broad masses did not feel this at all.
Yes, they historically have a beard with PR. In any case, in the Russian Federation. Xs, maybe in Japan and other countries the representations work more adequately. They held contests with very fat prizes, where some cool photographers could simply collect them by buying there one of the cheapest cameras to participate. And nowhere was it really said about this competition. On Instagram, contests were held with prizes - cameras and glasses. It was also not announced en masse. Now there are regular contests, but with prizes like branded sweatshirts, well, that's it. Well, that is, our local office suffers from nonsense instead of performing its direct duties - promoting brand products.
I don't know what JIP will do, we'll see. As I said, I closed almost all the focal points. My two carcasses will be enough for me for 5-10 years, and there maybe some Chinese will catch up, the MFT format is open.
Back in March, we published tests of this lens:
Antiresno, how many prof. sports reporters filmed on micra?
I'm afraid to assume that not a single one. Olik with his professional OMD E-M1X and this lens is generally not clear who is counting on. There are fewer amateurs than Leica owners, and professionals use a friend's technique.
To whom Olik paid, they shoot on him. And many more “to try”. And I am sure there will be not so few enthusiasts who will really use it.
Usually what the editorial board gives the “professionals” is why they shoot.
In fact, with the advent of this glass, many professional sports reporters can just pay attention to Olympus. If you need compactness / portability in this class, then the choice is really not great.
The closest option is Nikon D500 + Tamron 150-600mm F5-6.3 Di VC USD SP G2, but this is not a native lens and there may be problems with focus, or there is still a NIKKOR 200-500MM F / 5.6E ED VR, but it seems to be not protected from bad weather. At the same time, the price of em-1x + 140-400 can fit the three sets described above. In this case, Olympus has an advantage in stub, native ligament and dust-moisture-frost protection. On the above-described set on Nikon it will be possible to get a picture similar in technical quality, but when shooting more static scenes, Olik will come out ahead, well, it should be more compact.
In general, the lens is really small, I have a telephoto lens from a 4/3 mirror system - 50-200mm 2.8-3.5 and it is rather small on the e-m1 mark3, but consider this one as if you put a 200-300ml mug on mine. In general, a good lens.
* 150-400, of course, a typo. This is how mine looks on the carcass. But it's bigger than the modern 40-150mm f2.8.
If this Olik also cost the same as the Tamron 150-600mm G2, then it would be a super-mega popular solution, and so Olik costs 7 times more. For some tasks, Nikon D500 / Canon 7D M2 under Tamron or Sigma will be more effective.
If we calculate, then the efficiency in terms of exposure and sensitivity will be the same for these kits, in the case of Nikon, with Canon it will be less effective. It is not known that with the permission of the cited Tamron and Nikkor, about Olik in this regard, I have no doubts that he will be good with an open one.
And then, if the Sigmas and Tamrons had no problems, people would have no need to buy their own Nikon glasses.
Glass is expensive, but it has no direct analogs. Either shorter and not protected, or non-native (let's lower the aperture). And on FF, if you look for analogues, then the price tag flies into space and there are no direct analogues either.
Sigma 300-800 f5.6 suggests itself, but this is a 6-kilogram huge pipe, without a stub and protection, and this is again a non-native glass for Canicons.
Well, that is, the choice is quite difficult in this class of camera + lens bundles. But I had no experience of dealing with such glasses, maybe other things are important there.
ISO u d500 is not comparable with any micro, their best m1x ceiling 6400 has, these are the capabilities of a ten-year d3s
The real difference is 1 stop. I took RAW from dpreview test shots. The difference with Z6 is 2 stops, with z7 if 2 stops are brought to the same scale, if absolutely - 1 stop. Compared with om-d e-m1 mark3. I myself was a little surprised, positively.
Their old matrices are also very good. Was pleasantly surprised when comparing
Before you start discussing a working iso on micros, just look at what is going on with them after 2000.
And you don't have to look there. Add 1-2 stops to the competitor and everything will start the same. If the scene is relatively static, then Olik will get an advantage over the ZOC without a stub, over the Z-kami it may be minimal.
But those are high ISO, while Nikon will certainly be better for shooting a landscape on a minmalk with a wide DD and rubber raves. The same goes for astro landscapes. Unfortunately, this is practically unrealistic on micra, at least in one shot. Although you can try your native fish with a hole 1.8 - you can still get something with it.
You can watch it wherever you go, of course. I just draw your attention that if you do not like the color degradation at 3200 in Olympus, you will not like it in a good crop on iso 6400, and FF on iso 12800. That's all the magic. If these opportunities are not enough for you - well, ok, choose something else, no problem.
Yes, there are quite understandable limitations associated with a smaller matrix and higher pixel density. It's just that this particular difference is not that great in practice. There are other characteristics and capabilities / impossibilities of cameras.
As for the bad shots on Flickr - well, it depends a lot on the author of these shots. You can remove it on ISO 3200 and it will be satisfactory, or you can remove it with underexposure and try to pull something else out. In addition, photos with poor color and / or noise can be found on users of any system.
Here's a look, Olympus OM-D E-M1 mark III vs Nikon D5 & Nikon D500
As a result, it merges 1 stop D500 and 2.5 stops D5, but this is still D5, rather bold.
"You don't have to look there."
I look wherever I want.
I see real photos on flickr, with the same micr.
After 1600, color and DD evaporate, as does detail.
Likewise E-M5 markII vs Nikon D4 / DF - 2.5 stops difference.
Why 2.5 stops - because Olympus is doing worse on 2 stops, and much better on 3.
In general, when I started to compare, I thought it would be much worse, but I was pleasantly surprised.
the sensor is physically 4 times smaller in area, from here and similar numbers. 2 steps = 4 times
The enthusiasm for evaluating a microscope usually disappears somewhere when we start to really use something small-matrix, and not consider test frames with a uniform high-quality light and a pressed aperture.
It depends on what tasks. If there is a hellish need to blur the background into jelly - then yes, FF. But if the target, on the contrary, is a larger grip at the same aperture, then a micra is ahead. And in most problems, plus or minus the same thing.
I thought of leaving Olympus six months ago, on the Z5 / Z6, but when I imagined that it was necessary for a set of glasses of thousands so 5-7 bucks, I immediately got sick for the sake of a ghostly profit and a new potential crap to which I would need to get used to. In addition, glass without a spark and the available ultra-wide zoom is rather poor at the wide end, vignetting does not go away until f11, which is kind of dumb for a remake.
And by the way, there is a button on the preview that worsens the lighting conditions, which in our comparison does not change the alignment of forces. And by the way, it was she who was pressed on the given screenshots.
FF exists not only for blurring the background in jelly, there are many other factors for the priority of choice and blurring the background - in one of the last places.
I am aware of the button, and I am aware that it slightly changes the lighting conditions. However, this is far enough from real conditions, almost an abyss. I have seen a lot of microshots, thanks.
I could think of a couple of cases when the micra shows itself well - this is shooting birds (not because it shoots better than a full frame, of course not, it's just that the weight, dimensions and the cost of the kit are much lower, and stabilization), as well as macro photography.
Alas, both of these cases do not coincide with my area of interest.
For me personally, FF and Nikons in particular are interesting only for the ability to shoot astro-landscapes in one frame so that the Milky Way, for example, can be seen. Mikra (in the person of Olympus) covers all my other tasks completely and it is convenient in them. Yes, there are slippery moments when FF would be better, but this does not cause a desire to completely switch to another system, and it is costly to keep the two systems both financially and by itself.
When Olympus made his statement, I just had the money and I thought it might be worth crawling over to the Nikon Z5 / 6, but I looked at the reviews, at the carcass on the glass and somehow got sick. Not that very bad, just somehow not impressive and all this is far from ideal, unfortunately, although new and expensive. And I don't want to go to the ZK after the UPC. And in the end he took a fresh carcass of Olik. I will buy the super-wide later, although it will be expensive. We'll have to take 3-5 shots of astro-landscapes somehow staking ...: D
And the pictures for all systems are very different, here it depends more on the taste and abilities of the author than on the camera.
Of course, you can't argue about taste and abilities, this is the main thing, but the camera is not the least important (more precisely, the matrix format)
For example, I know for sure that in portrait photography, not a single Olympus will draw in the same way as the “ancient” pioneers, for example, and the point here is not even a small depth of field.
However, if m4 / 3 suits your needs completely, that's good :) The system itself has a bunch of nice buns, including a good color.
I don’t know, maybe 5D evokes warm feelings of nostalgia or something like that, I don’t. As for drawing portraits - without tests in the same conditions, these are all empty words, but unfortunately no one will conduct such tests. It's just that light is very important in a portrait, if the light is good, you can shoot it on anything, well, almost. If there is no light, you can try to paint something there in HSV, here you need a wide DD of the camera so that artifacts do not get too much. But IMHO, where there is nothing to shoot, there is no need to shoot. This is also taste, of course.
And in terms of technical characteristics, 5D is no better than Olympus and, in general, has more problems in terms of the matrix, in particular, pronounced banding.
He has a bold pixel, minimal requirements for optics and it seems like a pleasant color rendition in the stock, and this is where the advantages generally end.
Also, Canon's filters are made in such a way that enough green penetrates into the red channel and it is probably from this that the skin tone of people's faces is better, especially in green bushes. It is more difficult to achieve this on Nikon, although I saw good pictures with skin tone norms on Nikon and I myself ruled, but this must be done and this is a minus.
After Nikonov, I like Olympus also because the photos almost do not need to be processed by color, you can leave them right in the drain, the colors are pleasant despite the poor DD and so on.
Soon they will frighten with banding in photo schools. But personally, no matter how much I did not shoot with the same 5d (and many other Canon and other cameras), I have never encountered at least some tangible problem of banding. He got out only with very highly specialized types of shooting, for example, at a very long exposure, or when trying to do vseudo-xdr and twisting the sliders to + -5, or when shooting on extreme ISO. Of course, this is my experience and it has nothing to do with reality.
2Sergey, I'm telling you, if Olympus suits you by the picture 100%, it's great :) I perfectly see the difference between the one and the other and no banding (by the way, how do you need to twist the picture to get it ??) you can't scare off the old penny (I myself shoot on an old man d700, a super convenient camera, with zero color problems, especially with custom profiles, a penny is simply given as an example of the most budget fullframe today, and also famous for a rather colorful camera)
Don't look at those. characteristics on paper, a flat test scene for a preview and so on, the technical characteristics of the same 2005 penny should not limit in anything even modern photographers, I mean amateurs, AF may not be suitable for professionals, of course. As for the picture, there are no miracles, a large matrix ALWAYS looks more advantageous, all the more (paradoxically) in good light.
You gave an example of a camera with good color reproduction in your opinion in the context that FF is needed not only for a narrow DOF. From this I can conclude that modern FF cameras “paint portraits” worse?
Banding was given by me as an example of the imperfection of everything. I don’t think he will somehow show himself in ordinary shooting, but in night shooting it can be very much. Anyway.
Especially I went to the flickr to look at the photos and saw there just a photo, except that I saw much more professional photos, and so ordinary photos and noisy overshadowed landscapes, and vulgarly processed portraits - everything is there. As with the Nikon D7000 and any other camera.
I opened raw with dpreview and the same one from Olik, twisted it, yes, if everything is roughly equalized, Canon will have more saturated colors. And this, in principle, does not mean anything either, tk. in equal measure, information is added using a profile, all sorts of unique tone curves, and so on. The main thing here is that a double-cropped picture can be brought to the form of an ancient one, but FF.
As if the conclusion that I'm trying to convey is that micra makes it possible to photograph well. If the correction can bring the results to homogeneity, then in this particular discipline the cameras are conditionally equal.
You are writing about custom profiles for the D700 - this is the same thing.
It's just a stereotype that FF is better than a micra in everything for a hundred years at lunchtime, besides, it seems to have appeared back in the days of the 4/3 mirror system. But this is a stereotype and it must either be confirmed or refuted. And it cannot be confirmed by comparing photos taken under different circumstances. Those. a double-blind test must be performed. But no one will bother with this, tk. making it is not as easy as it seems.
The stereotype about film color can also be put here.
That is, an analogy can be drawn with hi-end audio. There are audiophiles who buy equipment for $ 100500 and they have their own stereotypes, warm tube sound, class A, lossless formats. Well, the price of all this is blind testing, which usually shows that there is no special difference, and if there is, it is beyond the limits of perception.
In the photo, everything is of course a little more complicated, because any combination of camera / set of lenses has a huge number of combinations of parameters in certain conditions and among them there are, so to speak, ranges in which the result is good. And these ranges for crop / micra and FF often overlap for some shooting scenarios.
I do not want to say that micra is better than FF, in any case, just in very many situations it is not worse, and in some even better. It's just a tool with specific parameters.
Sorry for a lot of letters.
Sergei, according to the first conclusion - he is slightly wrong. The first dime is shown not because modern dimes are worse, but because it is the cheapest of those models, which allows you to get an excellent picture - 12-15 thousand rubles bu, it is cheaper than an entry-level (!) Level crop in a store.
Now another point (about flicker) - you can shoot badly with any camera, as well as good.
Again, what follows is that if we see a good picture taken with a “bad” camera, and a taxic one taken with a “good” camera, we will certainly choose the first one, there is no doubt about it. Despite the undoubtedly greater potential of a “good” camera.
But. With all this, if we have “other equal” - one operator, one plot, the same color / light on the other side of the lens, some technical differences already begin to emerge. Which can be quite insignificant (and there are many comparisons of micra and ff on the network, where, consciously or not, competing models are driven into conditions leveling the result, and it is proposed to find a vanishing difference), or they can be significant, but in any case, this needs to be compared yourself, on different subjects and in different conditions, and then draw conclusions.
Not according to the picture with the preview.
Not by "paired" tests made by someone unknown.
Not on the cards uploaded to flickr, people with random preparation and random tastes in processing.
Something like this :)
2 Arkady Shapoval
I just gave the banding as an example that nothing is perfect. I also don't think that in real practice you can stumble about it.
With regards to the site. If it's not difficult for you, please do so that at the 6th level of comment branching you can reply to the commentator. And then you have to answer yourself with a link. You don't have to do a branch shift, just to be able to reply to a specific message.
And also I do not receive notifications of replies, my mail is at mail.ru. If this is not intended and in your power to fix it, then please fix it. The last notification was in 2017, this year nothing comes, and there is no spam either. You can "burn" this comment after reading. Thanks!
Obviously, there are just enough people who think that Canon is no longer cake in terms of color. Now it is clear.
In fact, I would not start with minimal budgets. Mirror crop can be found even cheaper.
Conclusions must, of course, be done by yourself, but not everyone has the opportunity to check all interesting cameras in all use cases. Having to apply prediction based on logic and common sense, researching technical tests and reviews on technology, starting from the limited experience of using available cameras.
And the problem when comparing cameras is just the absence of these very other equals, they simply do not exist. If we compare, for example, FF Canon with FF Nikon, it is still quite simple, then when we take micru / crop, then it already has other disadvantages and other advantages. You just need to determine the list of scenes to be filmed and see if a particular set of equipment can provide high quality in these conditions.
For example. We take Canon 5D and half a penny 1.8, we take some Olympus e-m10 mark 2 (relatively cheap camera) with a native “fifty kopeck piece” 25 1.8. If we want and can (the quality suits) take pictures on the open at the FF, then here the micros really have nothing to offer. But if we cover the FF (and the old glasses are not too working on open holes), say up to 2.8, then we can shoot without covering the micra at a lower ISO value with the same or slightly better color. Yes, DOF will be wider in the case of the micro, but this is not significant. Further, if our lighting falls and the scene is relatively static (a portrait, for example), and we were shooting at the limit, at ISO 3200 and 1600, respectively, in the first case we either take a flash, if the situation allows, or a tripod, or stop shooting. At Olympus, we can extend the pleasure by 3-4 steps at the same iso value. But here, too, there are moments like if the wind, then the hair and clothes of the model may blur, some will like this effect, some will not. But in general, a staged portrait can be shot at shutter speeds up to several seconds. Here, well, either use a flash too.
Shooting a motion in the dark without a flash, I must say, not every FF will allow, this in itself is difficult. Well, in general, this is an example.
Yes, modern lenses for FF BZK are good with an open aperture, but here the question of price and weight and dimensions already pops up. And the latter is not taken into account by many. I had a Nikon D7000, 16-85 3.5-5.6, 50 f1.4G and Sigma 10-20 4.5-something there, I don't remember already. This fit into one bag of Lowepro Event Messenger 150. With a creak, you could drive in something else narrow like Jupiter 37A.
After moving to Olympus, I have an e-m1 mk3 carcass with 16 1.4, 30 1.4, a whale 12-50 3.5-6.3, a macro 60 2.8, a fisheye 7.5 3.5 and a telephoto 50-200 2.8 - into the same bag with the same weight. 3.5, and this is EGF 100-400, as it were. Moreover, the telephoto consumes about a third of the useful volume of the bag. Well, that is, more possibilities fit into a unit of volume.
Yes, we can say that according to depth of field I have a maximum correspondence to aperture of 2.8 at FF for two focal lengths. But if a 24-70 2.8 fits into the same bag, then the 70-200 is most likely gone, not to mention the 400mm. And it will be noticeably harder. Of course you can use a backpack, yes, you can, but not everyone wants to.
Actually, this is the essence of the pain of choice, that there is no clear advantage. If you need to make some landscape portraits in one frame in high resolution 36-100 megapixels - here without special options for FF and SF. But in the same subject in controlled lighting, Olympus can shoot HiRes at 50-80 megapixels. In the latest cameras, you can take 50-megapixel shots (assemblies of 8 frames) handheld, but this is not suitable for all scenes, because there will be artifacts on moving objects.
If there is a need to pull the maximum of the range from one frame, then a 14-bit rav is also useful. But in ordinary life, these files are not required and take up kilotons of disk space if you want to save them, but that's another question.
And so I don't understand why Mikra makes 20MP matrices. Most of its users do not need this. Here Panas rolled out a camera with a 10-megapixel matrix, which gave the user a larger working ISO and 14-bit raw, which seems to make sense.
Sergey, I seem to have mentioned in the previous message that the depth of field is not the main thing, but you are again comparing ff at 2.8 and micra at open, they say it will be almost identical)))) Well, it won't.
Firstly, with good light the picture will be "fatter", and with poor ff it starts to lose color and details with a noticeably higher ISO, and the resolution on the same lenses (I mean systems where crop and ff are present simultaneously) is much higher.
From the crop, by the way, the micra has much less difference than between the crop and ff. Therefore, I can understand the change from q7000 to Olik and the pleasure of winning in size.
Do it easier - buy 5d and half of the cheapest (it does not always hit, but sometimes it still hits :-)), they cost a penny now, and if suddenly "does not work" - sell for the same money, without losses.
But - compare yourself.
You see, the smaller the pixel size, the more you can see that the color becomes “strained”, overclocked. I personally took the 7100 after owning the d7100, and I want to say the difference is quite noticeable, and not in favor of the XNUMX.
So I'm not telling you that the depth of field is the main thing. It's just that in that example I tried to bring the result to the maximum correspondence, although it was necessary to take 25 1.4 under the micro, but Olympus does not have such a native, there is only 1.2.
It's just that all these epithets like “fatter”, “more voluminous”, etc. - all this cannot be objectively measured, therefore it is better not to use these terms. As in audio - juicy sound, vinyl, lamps ... But in fact, the point is different in general.
Here is a bold picture - what's this? For some it is low contrast and softer transitions, for some it is moderately contrasting, for some it is an overcooked picture, some like it like in old print magazines - with a color shift due to chromatic aberrations of optics (but they are then they do not know about it). Well, it happens, you know, clouds in the sky are kind of convex, but the secret is that they have a colored border simply because of aberrations.
Technically, this can be explained by the large area on which the light is collected. That is, if we have sensors of the same sensitivity, all other things being equal, the one with more area of one point accumulates more information. This is important at high ISOs because in most cases, increasing iso is a blunt multiplication of that numerical value of photons from the matrix by a certain coefficient. But what matters is not the absolute value of these photons collected by the pixel, but the relative one. Therefore, pixels of a smaller area, even if they collect information, with an increase in iso (multiplication), the difference will be coarse, hence we have the fact that on the crop our color begins to degrade earlier than on the FF matrix, all other things being equal. What I showed by comparing micra 16mp and ff 16mp - the difference is a little more than 4 times (two stops). This disadvantage is partially compensated by the use of high-aperture optics, when we supply a larger luminous flux to the same cell of a smaller area. Well, that is, if we compare ff at the limiting iso and hole 5.6 and the micra at the limiting iso for it (2 stops lower than the FF) and glass with a hole 2.8 (2 stops lighter), the result should be comparable in terms of fat and all other things being equal ...
But this is theoretically, this is not verified information. Just as your information about the fat content of the picture with FF has not been verified. And you and I have already decided everything for ourselves and no checks are needed. This comparison is necessary for those who are not yet in the subject.
Of course, I will not buy a Canon, I took Nikon's 6D and D750 to play, not bad, but they are very bulky. If we ignore all the factors, I should have taken ZK Canon for the sake of super-wide-zoom, they have which I like, but it's too inconvenient in real life. Two systems, if one is the main, the second is lying, you have to think if the batteries are charged there, take or do not take with you, etc. Well, search at a flea market, buying, selling at a flea market, I don't want to waste time and contact people once again. And from fifty dollars I will definitely not get a buzz. Nikon and fifty dollars seem to be doing even better.
And then the cheapest 1.8 kopeck piece from Canon - well, here it is, starting in an amicable way with f4, such a conclusion can be drawn from the reviews here on Radozhiv, however, from any others. This means the same 2 stops lower exposure and wider DOF. Yes, I will get fatter races there, but no tangible profit.
The owner of that same 6D ended up using a Nikon D5500, a crop, yes. From motivation - a big heavy fool, but the picture is plus or minus the same. Well, apparently the color of Nikonov didn't bother him. If we take multi-megapixel FF cameras - there, in a 1: 1 scale, exactly the same hat is going on as on the crop.
Sergey, and here you are again for some reason about depth of field, you calculate the equivalent, F2-F4…. :-)))
Let's just say, as a result, I made conclusions for myself a long time ago, having reviewed a bunch of ravocs from the micro, filming a lot on crop, and came to the conclusion that the best option is to have two systems - a light crop / m43 with a travel fix-zoom (and only, collect two full-fledged systems make no sense), and the main, full-frame, heavy, but also high-quality, with the necessary set of optics. The best option (for me, again, in terms of the totality of parameters) is Nikon.
You also made conclusions for yourself that the quality of m4 / 3 is quite enough (like that friend who escaped from 6d to d5xxx), well, everyone here, I hope, are adults and are able to make decisions on their own already)) And the choice of another important to respect, yes.
To clarify, Nikon, of course, is a mirrorless one, since I do not find any special advantages for myself (!) In a mirrorless one at the moment, but there are disadvantages. Even if we close our eyes to the cost of the carcasses themselves (in today's realities this is normal), and to the need to get used to EVI, it is extremely unpleasant that Nikon cut AF-D support in his adapter.
The depth of field is needed to bring the result from the two systems to some kind of similarity. If the exposure is the same, what else to focus on? It is not the main thing, but it is important. With its help we set the sharpness gradient and decide what to put there and what to throw out. Well, the owner of the micra will hardly tell you that the depth of field is the main thing. : D By the way, I often cover those 1.4 glasses up to 2-2.8, so that more useful things fit in. And I think that the problem of greater depth of field on the micro is overestimated and only a few will not be enough. And also units need glasses with holes 0.9-1.2 and the like for FF, although I know a person who even uses a fifty-ruble 1.2 new Canon one on business. In general, we passed about the depth of field.
I also twisted a bunch of footage from a variety of cameras, and the conclusion is if there is a successful scene with a composition, beautiful light, etc. it becomes not particularly important what it is withdrawn for. And vice versa, if this is not in the scene, then at least take pictures on the SF - you won't get anything, if only you paint.
And it is better to have a small and light but complete system and take it with you more often than a large and heavy one that will stand idle. Well, this is also my subjective opinion, like everything described above and below. It would just be tiresome to write about it in every post.
Nikons Z did not come to me either. I thought I took a carcass and mirrored glasses as an option, but this miserable adapter ... And there is no screwdriver, oh, these worthless marketers, and you can't put a camera on the table with it. You think that people there were not stupid should have developed, but really there was nowhere else to shove this diaphragm drive ?! : D I also remember Sonya had a clumsy mirror glass adapter for the first A7.
And I quickly got used to EVI, of the minuses, only some minimal delay and a decrease in autonomy. In the ZK, you can set the frame and focus without including the camera at all.
Sergey, my opinion is that if you are going to assemble a system and invest in good glass, then on a system that will give maximum quality (for a reasonable price, of course), and this is unconditionally, a full frame, and the size / weight does not play that much a special role, because the same Olympus with pro-glasses cannot be put into your pocket. The fact that a plywood balalaika will play better in the hands of a professional than some Gibson in the hands of a clumsy, is a no brainer. But no matter what level I shoot myself, some worm will constantly gnaw me that “it would have worked better on a fullframe” :-)
In general, Kesar-Kesarevo, that is, mikre, is a compact travel (again for me, others may have other tasks), and for everything else - a digital mirror with 24x36.
While I was writing, I looked in between cases on flickr in the profile topic for 45 / 1.2. Good portrait glass, sharp open, not cheap, yes.
But - I don't like the picture, for the life of me. Flat. I flipped through 20 pages in a row. And touching upon the financial side of the issue (which is significant for the majority of Russians), its used cost is two (!) Prices for 85 / 1.4D. Do you understand what this means? For rather big money, in general, for this Olympus I will never (!) Get a picture that will be given by a twice cheaper fix from a mirror system.
SF is even better))
Mikhail, I specially emphasized - “for reasonable money” :-)
Well, I don’t like the picture and don’t like it, what can I do. As the saying goes, "you either like the movie or not." There is also Sigma 56 1.4, it seems - many people like it.
By the way, I also looked at a few pages about 85 1.4, well, there are definitely more well-professionally staged portraits. Amateur walk-throughs there are the same ordinary as elsewhere, not arousing any interest.
At 45 1.2 yes, there are a lot of passing frames. And I would probably prefer Sigma at a much lower cost. In general, if it were not for Sigma with its 1.4 glasses, I would hardly be on the micro.
The impression about the camera seems to depend very much on the processing of the frame and the shooting conditions, I would say that Olympus initially somehow hypertrophied sharpness, i.e. sharp glasses, no AA filter and they add a little more in the carcass. In raw, VNG4 debayering can be used to compensate for this - then the image will become softer. Yes, these are all hemorrhoids, but each system has its own troubles and deviations.
Therefore, I say that it is necessary to compare in identical conditions as much as possible, so that only the technical component remains to be compared. Without such a comparison, the price of all conclusions is zero.
It is necessary to take several dozen plots (for statistics), most likely with mannequins in the studio, a recognized professional, let him shoot at FF in his own style. Available at expo and grip parameters. Or maybe even vice versa to compress the FF for an action-packed plot. Then launch a person with a microscope who will repeat these photographs on a microscope according to composition, exposure. Then make identical post-processing and launch these pairs of frames into the focus group of full-frame lovers - if in most cases they manage to determine where someone is - OK, if not, then the topic is mikra and they scold her in vain. For a change, you can insert paired images from one camera, i.e. repetitions (well, not complete, of course) and grips and noises. So you can explore what people will react to and how. That would be interesting, but this is a responsible job in a good way, which hardly anyone will do.
Well, yes, we need to close the conversation, otherwise it will go through the second round soon. Thank you for the conversation! We flooded here well, but 150-400 is nothing, right ?! xD
Sergey, it seems to me that we are here (more precisely, you are more :-)) trying to prove that 2x2 = 4, but if we hire a professional sharper, he will be able to prove to the audience that in some cases it is possible to get 5 :-)
It's just physics. The larger the pixel, the larger the detector, the better the picture. And I personally drew conclusions based on my own experience, and my own experience is like that)) Let these conclusions cost nothing for someone else, but the main thing is that I myself, for myself, know what is what)))
And you, of course, also know)))
Sergei, someone in LiveJournal has already tried to compare FF and crop (I don’t remember which one), and then posted a vote on the page “where is FF?”.
I have already spoken about these “blind” comparisons, from single frames it will be practically impossible to understand anything, I somehow threw a “duck” for fans of the colorful crop S5pro from an inch replica and no one noticed the catch))))
But if you shoot yourself, and not a couple of frames, but for a rather long time, the difference becomes very visible.
Regarding physics, I agree with you, and I myself brought conclusions about the area of the light receiver. It's just that we still end up looking at 8-bit (at best) screens with 2MP resolution. Someone, of course, also prints, but in fact there are not too high requirements for the source code, as some think.
To make an analogy with audio, researchers have proven that for human perception, it is enough to encode audio at 44.1 khz with a depth of 16 bits. But there is a contingent of people who believe that this is not enough. It is possible to encode in 384 kHz and 32 bits, it is possible and there are many who “hear the difference”, as they think, but in fact this difference is beyond perception.
So in photography, in reality, almost no one examines photos under a magnifying glass, except for the photographers themselves. For many people, what Instagram offers is enough, although I'm not one of them.
And in fact, I only urge not to make subjective conclusions, but to use a scientific experiment and statistics. Then it will be fair. It's just a couple of orders of magnitude more difficult than making subjective conclusions.
In fact, we shoot mostly for ourselves (and even if not, sometimes yes :-)), and it is subjective conclusions that fit perfectly here.
I propose to really end up with offtopic, everyone stays with his own, we will decide on that :)
Yes, in LJ and in general, if you search on the topic of crop vs FF, there will be so many things and almost nothing particularly adequate. We still have to use mannequins in controlled lighting. And between FF and APS-C crop the difference is about the same as between APS-C and micro. But there are many subtleties that not everyone takes into account. Naturally, if you throw out the glass and other characteristics and functions, the FF is better, no doubt about it. But the main thing here is the ability to get the desired result.
I believe that the micra gives the opportunity to get a result, somewhere less, somewhere more than FF, depending on the tasks and conditions. That's all.
A small correction: there is still much more difference between ff and crop than between micro and crop, especially if crop 1.6))
Well, yes, in size, yes.
I also shoot for myself and for my family. I have enough to look and just look. I’ll even have to print soon.
As for ducks, they can also put a duck on you if they know what you expect to see. Subjective experience, he tends to close on himself and find confirmation of the desired. Therefore, the scientific method is preferable, it is impartial.
Evaluating a camera by someone else's photographs is such a thing for yourself. I just don't remember any worthy portraits on micra. Both on flickr and on the Olympus club website. But I see that somewhere someone tried to shade poorly, somewhere oversharp, somewhere a poor composition or light, or all together. This all gives the impression of the picture and the technique on which it was made, therefore, shooting in identical conditions is necessary. Those. I know how my camera shoots, I don't see the technical limitations to take good portraits.
By the way, I don’t remember any particularly striking portraits at FF either. It's just that most of the professionals shoot at FF, it has historically happened, professionals are usually quite conservative, and they are on the rails - if everything is stable, why change something. In principle, I share this philosophy, a sort of Unix-way, while it works - don't touch it.
Here's another review for anyone interested:
Wah !!! ETOGES on Crop 2 you can shoot astro !! I'll go look for 7500))) No one has extra ones? ))
For astro, it is really better to take a telescope, you will get into kilobax-one and a half, most likely, it will be longer and lighter and the mount is still with auto-steering, which will be useful for astro photography anyway.
Nikons have a similar only lighter Nikon 400mm f / 2.8
I saw pictures of him. I did not sleep at night)
for a long time the announcement did not cause so many comments
Simply, the lens is really interesting, as is the Olik system. It is all the more curious that Olik is everything ...
Olik is not all.
Wait and see.
So you yourself wrote above that "everything", and now - "we'll see."
Have you changed your mind? :-)
Not at all. I expressed my opinion. You disagree with him. So I say that time will tell who is right and who is not.
Something tells me that the expression "everything" implies some kind of accomplished action. Time cannot show anything here, because the action has already happened :)
I suspect that this all comes from the hysteria whipped up by Internet users during the publication of the news-duck that Olympus, they say, is “leaving the photo business”. True, later it turned out that the photo division was only selling to another company, which announced that it was planning to continue to release new models of cameras and lenses. Even in this news - please - a supertele with a vehicle is announced.
But - “the sediment remained” (c), right? ;)
During agony, not a single doctor will issue a death certificate, since the body is legally still alive. But based on objective indicators and experience, it is obvious to everyone that death will follow agony. No "sediments". Read, analyze how the future business is developing, how engineers and specialists leave the photo department:
You can also look at the global political and economic processes in the world, at the crisis in the photo business in general.
Victor, are you bored and want to chat or do you like to argue on any topic, including phraseological expressions of chat participants? Unlike Sergei, I will not keep you company in a multi-line flood.
Based on the "objective indicators and experience" according to your logic, it should also be obvious to you that "everything" can be attributed to every second corporation engaged in the production of photographic equipment, right?)
Whether you want to keep company in a multi-line flood or not, it doesn't matter.
It's just that initially you had the imprudence to say unreasonable nonsense, and now you are trying to hastily change your shoes in the air, you shouldn't :-)
That's exactly how I think of Nikon too. I have already spoken on this topic earlier. In the late 2000s, no one could believe that the largest company Nokia was done. Many also giggled and did not believe in the obvious. As you know, an optimist is a well-informed optimist. "Prepare for the best, but hope for the worst." This is all a sober assessment, not a "foul" mood.
Victor, you write nonsense in your posts. I have not changed my shoes or changed my mind about the future of Olympus. This is my personal opinion, I do not impose it and do not insist on it. You can continue to engage in verbiage, but I do not think that this has anything to do with this announcement and is interesting to the rest of the readers.
Damn it, you, Ivan, are a prophet himself!
It's good that Nikon and Olympus don't know anything about you :-)
And what kind of characters in the network you will not meet….
Wrong - "prepare for the worst, hope for the best."
Another amendment - “pessimist - well-informed optimist”.
They know about me in Nikon, I worked there.
If someone expresses his opinion, then he is a prophet? You have some kind of confusion in your head.
If someone expresses a prophetic opinion about a corporation without good reason - he is either a prophet (which is unlikely, since I personally do not believe in prophets), or ... Then you can think of it yourself :-)
Exclusively based on the rules of behavior in a decent society and unwillingness to laugh out loud, I will not be interested in who exactly you worked in Nikon, but there are certain guesses)))
Once again I am convinced that the subject of the dispute does not matter to you. The process itself is important.
You so decided that I prophesy. I have already said that time will judge us. Perhaps I will be wrong. I am not claiming to be the ultimate truth. I just expressed my assumptions.
If you think that I worked as a marketer, then you are wrong. I was repairing cameras.
Mmm .. To be honest, I have little faith in the prospects of Olympus and cannot vouch for the fate of Nikon. Against the backdrop of a collapsing market, plus what Covid brought, someone will have to leave.
Everything is possible. All corporations are now suffering losses, and market leaders are no exception, by the way. And if you remember the stories with very successful companies such as Microsoft or Samsung, how did they deceive their users by covering up projects?))
Nevertheless, no one forbids building predictions about the fate of a particular company, although this occupation is rather unpromising)
For example, for several years now I have been living only in the secondary market, and what happens there "upstairs" practically does not matter, the cameras will not be worse off from this, and the optics will last for several decades :-)
Olympus is sold to a company that is, in fact, a recycler. For example Vaio.
Now the main task of Panasonic, Fuji, etc. To have time to lure the most talented and skillful engineers Olympus.
The fact that they will run or be forced is a matter of time.
Already started by the way: https://photar.ru/olympus-zakryvayut-polovinu-servisnyx-centrov-v-yaponii/
The first task of the recycling company is to reduce losses. The savings started at the s / c, which means that the new owner is definitely not planning an expansion. For some time they will be afloat by inertia, but they will not invest in development. If the market continues to shrink, and something much better than what is now available for reasonable money is not offered to the market, then the collapse will continue. Some developments and patents remained and will continue to live on them for now.
The big problem with m4 / 3 is the physical size of the matrix and the lack of bsi.
You are trying to explain something from the standpoint of logic and common sense. Victor does not need this, it gives him pleasure to troll and play a little.
2Ivan: in one thing, you are absolutely right - at the moment I am pleased with the light trolling of the next all-fencing hamster who thinks he knows something)))
So I do not say, but just expressed my opinion. And to be absolutely precise, Olic's photographic division is legally accurate after the sale to JIP.
You are certainly not worthy of the title of a hamster. Rather, a ram.
Yeah, that is, we are not choosing cameras with lenses here, but discussing in which company to invest more profitably? What difference does it make to me, as a user, by whom and how this or that company was bought?)) Eh, Vanya, Vanya, you can't change your shoes in the air without anyone noticing it, whatever one may say :-)
As for the "ram" test, primitive primitiveness began to appear))) I'm almost not surprised that work in Nikon was said only in the past tense, they do not tolerate such a long time xD
Olik has already said goodbye to his cameras and lenses. Are you already starting to dispute this?
I have never "changed my shoes" or changed my mind.
You yourself have become personal. Even higher, your trolling with Sergei showed that you are not going to discuss anything in essence, just have fun.
One of two things: either you have changed your shoes, or you simply don’t know the meaning of the simple Russian word “everything”. I hope for the first option.
And a couple more points - initially, it was you who clumsily tried to go over the personality (from the words “boring ..”), and with Sergey we had a long conversation about the advantages of various matrix formats, however, we did not come to a consensus, but it happens. There wasn’t a bit of trolling, if anything, so be friends with logic and critical analysis if you’re trying to engage in conversation.
Apparently, it is you who do not speak Russian. The pronoun “everything”, which you constantly quote and attribute to me, has a completely different meaning in comparison with the adverb “everything”, which I wrote. Perhaps you are not aware that in Russian there are 33 letters, not 32 - in addition to "e" there is also "e". Once you have decided that you can troll, then you can also be slightly "put down".
Once again for the stubborn. I have not changed my mind and believe that the future of the Olympus photo brand has no continuation. This is my personal opinion, since I have no right to say that this is so and only so.
About "boring" and "wanting to argue." When a person has nothing to do, he begins to find fault with words, expressions, and the subject of discussion is left aside. And reading your stormy correspondence with Sergei, I got the impression that they are trying to build a constructive dialogue with you, and whether you, willingly or not, switch to an arrogant foolish tone. And your constant emoticons in correspondence do not add seriousness to your statements.
Ay-ay. You must be unaware that even in official documents (!) It is quite possible to use “e” as a substitute for “e”? Is that all that you could catch on to?))) And since we are talking about the rules of the Russian language, it would be worth thinking about the fact that “also” does not mean “the same”, and if you are already undertaking to teach someone, probably and you yourself need to be able to, right?)) This is a race.
If a person expresses his opinion, then he a priori asserts something, if he does not add to the construction the words “maybe…”, “most likely…”, “it seems to me…”, etc. These are two.
As for the emoticons, I generally laughed, you are just some kind of cep)))
PySy: and about Nikon, apparently, I got to the point :-D Yes, and much more can now be predicted)))))
You don't have to reply to this message, because you noted at the very beginning that “unlike Sergei, I will not keep you company in a multi-line flood”, and after that they funnily flooded it with many lines))) This looks even more frivolous than emoticons in messages :-) And yes, unlike you, Sergey is much less boring, we must give him his due.
Actually, I didn't expect to hear anything other than rudeness.
About Nikon. You also forgot to ask for bank card details and other personal information. You will be surprised, but the school and the institute, and even the kindergarten are also in the past tense. What a pity that at that time of my career advancement there was no such valuable advisor in the person of you.
And about the flood, you did not understand my idea. I meant that I would not succumb to your provocations and frothing at the mouth to paint my thoughts, reasoning and detailed analysis on the topic of Olik, since initially I saw your mood not on the topic of conversation, but on swearing.
As for the size of the sensor, I agree, of course they are trying to leave by using high-aperture and super-high-aperture glasses (take the same Panasonic with unparalleled 10-25, or a whole line of fixes from Olya with f / 1.2), but this is certainly not cheap, but the picture is still micrushic remains.
By the way. Vanifatiev has examples from this glass (if anyone else is interested here :))
Quite not bad (however, for a lens of this level and price it was not expected)
It is specifically in these examples, IMHO, the lens is shown badly. There was a bust with noise reduction, but apparently there was not much to choose from. Vanifatiev seems to have good photos in composition / exposure, but he somehow borscht with processing. And his reviews and some bullish way of promoting Olympus are rather repulsive. In some video about blurring the background on Olympus, he showed a photo with a background “blurred” in Photoshop, well, why so? It's bad to be like this.
I've climbed the DXO Mark website in the measurements section. And he compared everything with Olympus - from medium format to nikon df, d700, sony a7es and canon 5d.
And I haven't found what exactly is responsible for good color rendering. In these tests, the micra really merges only in the signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range. In terms of color rendition and sensitivity to color, there is an order at low ISO values.
Maybe you know what exactly to look at in these numbers? It's just that in terms of sensitivity to colors and density of color filters, there are rather scattered data and estimates, everything else is quite clear and corresponds predictably.
In general, this whole beard with a micrush / non-micrushy picture depends solely on the shooting conditions and processing of a particular photo. I remember a video where a person took a format camera and took a photo from its focusing screen onto a crop. Well, I looked at these pictures - well, nonsense, there is nothing there except greater blur, tilt-shift capabilities, glass texture and antiquity plaque from old low-contrast glasses. Well, nonsense, no?
Just rely on your own eyes. For example, in terms of dhomark, the new 24MP crops significantly outperform the same d40, d80, and in terms of the pleasantness of the picture (closing your eyes to resolution), everything is exactly the opposite.
If Olympus is completely and completely satisfied, so what to look for from the good? :-)
About Vyacheslav I agree - photoshop so that you can not tell. Makes it bright, contrasting, catchy. I still remember his experiments with d800 and d90 two or three years ago, where the picture was shocked to the degree of identity, after which he concluded that there was nothing to constantly use a full-frame model if it was possible to shoot on a crop, and it was much more profitable.
You should not rely on your eyes. It's like calibrating a monitor - you can't rely on your own opinion about the good base color of a particular specimen, you still need to calibrate and characterize. Unless, of course, what matters to a person is what he dumps on the Internet and prints.
For example, just for example, the impression of the technical quality of a portrait can be distorted by the impression of the actual model, composition, cause disposition or rejection, subconsciously as well.
As if vision is only a part of the complex of human perception, and here everything is important, in general, smells and sounds, whether someone distracts them from their own warnings and conditioned reflexes. This is actually a swamp.
All of these abstract things lead us to audiophilia, where people start picking wires and “hear the difference” between them.
You must use clear, measurable terms. What is a micrushi picture? What is a flat picture? What is dead color?
Here, the dead color of the monitor gives me sensations with a small color gamut, the absence of the possibility of transferring some shades, in particular, red. On this IPS, which is typical of a laptop screen, people in photographs look like pale dead, but it is quite measurable and in soulless data it looks like this, admire - this is sRGB space and its 57% coverage by the monitor.
"Vyacheslava agrees - photoshop so that you can't tell" - can't tell from what?
It is obvious not to distinguish one system from another.
As for the eyes, what can you rely on then, if not on them? On numbers?
Eyes (and seeing a good, harmonious color, of course) are the main human tool in assessing photography. And although it has a formal relationship to audiophilia, in fact it is the most mediated.
To measure the color in numbers is like measuring the frequency response of a signal with an oscilloscope. The sine wave on the screen will look nice, but in reality it will be a boring UG.
Well, technically, except for the eyes, we humans have nothing to rely on. But you can look with these eyes at the camera's color rendering capabilities from some examples, raw materials downloaded from reviews. Well, if they are made, for example, in the same conditions as on the dpreview website, it's another matter that it's not particularly interesting to play them.
In flickr'e the photos are already processed. People who do not process photos at all before uploading them are either extremely cool masters of photography, or they are not interesting to anyone, except for a few of their friends, individuals. But most famous photographers still process photos. This means that it is impossible to draw conclusions about color rendition or other things.
You can also watch the photographer Daria Bulavina, also a user of Olikov, her processing is quieter, but all the same, toning can be traced, I do not see any “color” there.
What I proposed to compare, it would just be without processing with the most identical parameters for the grip (against which you were indignant for some reason) and the transfer of perspective. Then one could compare. If suddenly the frames were not too identical, you could take and make corrections on the carcass to bring them closer together. Then, already in the developer, correct the ideal reference sample and try to bring the result of the tested camera into full compliance with it. Of course, without coloring and blurring the background and other Photoshop operations of this kind. That is, white balance, levels / curves, maybe a little hsv as a last resort, because different cameras have different filters and so on.
Now, if it succeeded, and there would be several such examples in different conditions, I would consider the camera fit in the discipline.
"You can't tell one system from another, obviously." - well, this partly confirms what I am trying to explain to you.
Besides, I would call these examples flat, because there are rough tonal transitions and a telephoto perspective - the model is rolled out with a roller. On birds, this is not so striking, people are usually more relaxed about the mutilation of animals, unlike their own kind.
Therefore, I do not like the 75 1.8 vaunted by many, tk. this is already a telephoto lens for micra (EGF 150), and a little abroad of classic portrait focal lengths, but already has a narrow specialization. Here Sigma 56 1.4 is more interesting in this regard, although it is also too long.
And a sine wave both on the screen and when listening is a rather boring thing. Just a scientific approach allows you to quickly achieve the goal, and not engage in obscurantism.
Regarding comparisons, since I was “indignant”, let's dot the i :-) Either I misunderstood you, or you still argued that the difference between formats is just a difference in the flu. That is, if we set ff to 50/2, and to mikra - 25/1, there will be no difference in the quality of the picture, do I understand you correctly?
"" Not to distinguish one system from another, obviously. " - well, this partly confirms what I am trying to explain to you ”- and this does not need to be explained, I myself affirm it))) But - only from under the Photoshop hand of Vyacheslav. For clients. When I shoot for myself, I don't put a ton of processing on it, preferring a natural but beautiful picture. If you initially meant to work on order, for an average user, of course, there is no particular difference between the formats (except for the obvious - the ability to work at high sensitivity).
Even a narrow DOF is perceived by many as a marriage, and tasteless tint (just in case, I do not mean Vanifatiev, he has almost everything okay with this) is taken as an indicator of the professionalism of the photographer)))
The only thing - which I do not understand at all - what goal do you propose to achieve? Prove to me that there is really no difference between formats? Well, it's as if I were trying to prove to you that 2x2 = 5 :-) Our conversation was preceded by some practical experience, not so few cameras were tried, a bunch of rabbis were twisted, and the opinion was formed quite definite, and not read somewhere: “ fefe is kind of cool, and all that is less than mazdai, shoot fefe posons for sure I tell you ”, so in this direction the continuation of the conversation does not make sense, as you know)
You misunderstood me. I have not argued that the difference is only in depth of field. I said that she is important, her choice depends on the plot and the author's idea. I said that FF cameras and micra and, accordingly, crop have some "windows" of intersection of their capabilities. In my opinion, portrait photography falls into these windows.
Why can't you compare directly? Because there are many different variables. For example, we shoot a landscape, we need to fit from here to here. Those. if we set the aperture on FF 16, on the microscope we will have to set 8, this in turn dictates the choice of the remaining exposure parameters, if we fix the shutter speed, then we will set more on the stop on the FF. This slightly compensates for the lag of the micro in the picture.
Also on FF we can be forced to increase ISO by an imperfect picture at an open aperture. But this is true for DSLRs, tk. UPCs are modern in this regard, like nothing.
DOF is not the main but important parameter. It should fit the idea. I think that the micra in terms of depth of field is in the golden mean or slightly below, with glasses 1.2-1.4 where it is required. Those. I do not see the point in dark glasses on the micra, but I also see no point in 1.2 on the FF.
I would like to tell you that micra is not inferior to FF cameras in a fairly widespread range of photographic tasks (portraits, landscapes, subject, genre and reportage). It is clear that this should not include any narrow requirements and tasks.
I answered you mainly to these statements:
> The enthusiasm for evaluating a microscope usually disappears somewhere when we start to actually use something small-matrix, and not consider test frames with a uniform high-quality light and a pressed aperture.
> For example, I know for sure that in portrait photography, not a single Olympus will draw as much as the “ancient” pioneers, for example, and the point here is not even a small depth of field.
I do not agree that some kind of camera will draw something better. Therefore, he called this statement unfounded and proposed to compare in identical conditions.
All the same, the volume in the image depends more on the cut-off pattern in the photo, i.e. on shooting conditions, and only then can it be aggravated by playing with grip and vignetting, for example.
The same lens vignetting can be a source of some charm in photographs, but I would rather not have it because it can be applied very simply, and removed - only due to the DD camera.
The same can be said for the softness of the image. Yes, Olympuses are sometimes too harsh, I think they have some kind of fad from film times. But this is a feature that any brand of cameras has enough.
For the rest, I do not argue that micro matrices merge FF in many characteristics. But it doesn't even depend on the size of the matrix, but rather on the pixel density. Micro cameras with 16 and 20MP matrices have a pixel density similar to that of FF cameras with matrices of about 57 and 71MP, respectively. Here you can check out what kind of stuffing the picture is going to be on FF cameras with high resolution.
And in color, well, let not Olympus, good. We take Nikon DF, Sony A7s, Canon 5d (well, or there is some other one) - how to determine which one is better in color? What parameter to look at? And it is not clear, it is necessary to compare, but the color also depends on the lens. In general, everything is complex and ambiguous. Such is the conclusion.
So. As far as I understand, you are absolutely sure that the difference between mikra and fefe is only in the flu and in the workers of the ISO. Maybe not only, but these are fundamental indicators. I came to this conclusion based on this, including:
>> "I would like to tell you that in a fairly widespread range of photographic tasks (portraits, landscapes, subject matter, genre and reportage) micra is not inferior to FF cameras"
Well, that is, you mentioned the differences in ISO, grip (there to hide behind, open back and forth), and everything seems to be. Right?
>> "I don't agree that some kind of camera will draw something better."
Do not agree. Good. People on the internet don't have to agree with each other.
>> "Therefore, he called this statement unfounded and offered to compare in identical conditions."
Compare. Personally, I have already compared for a long time, and I will not repeat these experiments and prove something to someone. Your way is your way, mine is mine.
In general, there are two types of people on the Internet :-) Those who claim that micra is no worse at all, and those who say that physics cannot be fooled. The first, as expected, are fewer)))
The “volume” in the photo depends on many factors, and it is NOT ONLY a cut-off drawing.
>> ”And in terms of color, well, let not Olympus, good. We take Nikon DF, Sony A7s, Canon 5d (well, or there is some other one) - how to determine which one is better in color? "
You are not really going to determine the color quality from these color plates, or was it sarcasm (hopefully)?
In general, so. I propose to disperse with the world and let everyone remain unconvinced. It was interesting for me before, a few years ago, to prove something to someone, now I don't. I’m just glad that I found “mine”, you, as I understand it, too.
This is good.
Well, not only in the depth of field and ISO business, not only the cut-off pattern sets the volume. You somehow absolutize everything I say. I didn’t say that and don’t think so. There are just a lot of parameters, they all play some role.
>> In general, there are two types of people on the Internet :-) Those who claim that micra is no worse at all, and those who say that physics cannot be fooled.
Well, here I am a representative of both types, tk. I affirm the first and do not deny the second. And then there are people who say that micra is better than FF. And also people who silently shoot and do not sweat. : D
>> The “volume” in the photo depends on many factors, and it is NOT ONLY a cut-off drawing.
Well, let's say I know all the compositional and other aspects of volume transfer from the point of view of shooting technique. Omitting the optical factors, let's assume we have the same grip and viewing angle. What other factors remain that distinguish micra proper from FF in terms of volume transfer, portrait drawing, etc.?
>> You are not really going to determine the quality of the color reproduction here on these color plates.
No. It's just that between these seemingly cameras of the same weight category in terms of color fixation, color rendition, due to the bold pixel, there is a very big difference in color sensitivity measurements.
Simply put, the color is very different and it is not important. The opportunity to get results is important. And the speed of achieving this result is of secondary importance.
So with the micro, if I twist a couple of sliders I can achieve a result similar to FF, then the camera is not inferior. That's all.
If you see this question somehow differently, then please. Because did not understand what you mean.
The sensor is bigger - yes, but it determines the amount of collected light. If we discard all the little things, here we have two matrices, ff and micra, megapixels are the same, they are equally densely packed there and all that. There is a lens on ff with a hole 4 and a lens on a microscope with a hole 2. The question is - where will there be more color, light, etc.? The answer is nowhere, it will be the same.
>> So with the micro, if I twist a couple of sliders I can achieve a result similar to FF, then the camera is not inferior
If so, then yes. But you can't. You can only rotate the frame with FF in the same way, as Slava Vanifatiev does, then you will bring them to a similar form, because all the differences will be erased (especially when resizing).
As far as “megapixels are equally densely packed,” yes, perhaps, there will be no difference. But you understand that then there will be NO other things equal - after all, there will be significantly fewer megapixels on the micro (for example, if you compare with full-frame 16MP, there should be, uh, about four on the micro, right?), And this is a rather utopian task.
Again. I do not set a goal here to prove something to you, I just expressed my opinion, which I came to myself, experimentally. If you aim to challenge it, please challenge it, but on your own. Again, I'm not interested in this. I hope for mutual understanding.
> If so, then yes. But you can't.
I just propose to check this not specifically for you, but in general. It's just that these words are not supported by anything without verification. I believe that it will be possible, but this is also an unsubstantiated opinion.
> There will be no other equal - after all, there will be significantly fewer megapixels on the micro
In this case, there will be other equal ones, because there will be 16 on the mic and 16 on the FF. That is, we take the same number of megapixels of the same sensitivity, just the area of their receivers is different. And we illuminate a 4 times smaller matrix with a 4 times higher luminous flux - it turns out the same.
In reality, of course, everything is not so simple, but the experiment can be performed.
For example, nikon df & olympus e-m5 mark2 - 16 megapixels each. But the truth is, if the aspect ratio was equal. Or sony a7s & panasonic gh5s - both have 12 megapixels and the hash can seem to be able to shoot 3: 2 without a crop (it has a slightly larger matrix just for this).
And about resizing - it almost always takes place to a certain size, this is also a balancing factor.
>> I think that it will be possible, but this is also an unsubstantiated opinion.
So back it up. I personally (for myself) backed it up with a comparison personally, but I won't give you the results, everything remains in the skull, and you?
>> In reality, of course, everything is not so simple, but the experiment can be performed.
For example, nikon df & olympus e-m5 mark2 - 16 megapixels each
Great couple. Make a comparison and publish the results here on the website, just not in the comments, where they will of course get lost, but as a separate article. I think Arkady will not refuse, this will obviously not be a repetition of the existing article, and the question worries many newcomers.
Well, I have the second nickel Olikv in my hands. Who would fit DF and a rubber woman with a good skin tone. : D By the way, in our city they sell it second-hand, I even thought to buy it and 14-24 2.8g for space ... and these experiments. But I changed my mind, besides, 14-24 worries me in terms of space, it seems like everything should be ok, but I have not seen a single photo where everything is ok with the stars. And somehow there is not so much extra money.
Well, a woman is still better than a real one, and (this is the main thing) - good light, although for a change you can diversify it with bad))
In general, everything is in your hands. For the sake of experiment and a just cause, you can buy a bu, and then sell :)
No, a woman must be artificial. A live model is unstable, it will smile differently from frame to frame, distract from the case.
In the hands of something in the hands, but a lot of fuss, you need to waste time, money. It's not just that, you need to arrange everything, figure out where, what to photograph, how to change the cameras so that there is a perfect match of the composition, if there is time, I will.
In general, the vaio brand (sold six years ago) still exists and even announces something there, for example, portable laptops. The market has obviously narrowed, yes.
What will happen to Olympus there, time will show that with him “EVERYTHING” I would not say, at least now.
And where does Waio exist? There is no more. Maybe he announces, but he doesn't sell anything
Google vaio sx12, sx14 for example.
This is where the guys stand up for their companies .. (it is clear that cameras are suitable for their tasks) It is necessary for photo companies to hold competitions to present their ambassadors (throwing aside I am an artist, I see it) as in races or shooting. For example, how many hits on a moving target out of ten in different classes Well, also run around the desert in the sand for camels and shoot at dusk.
And for those heaped up with different adapters and lenses, separate competitions. Let them confirm their declared qualities ....
A little on the topic 150-400 and for humor, see here.