No love for the EISA 2012 Advanced CSC ?

[arad85]

Physics is never my strong point (or punctuation and spelling sorry) but I'm pretty sure you are wrong.

Umm.. barring extremes (i.e. where you actually are using a wideangle lens that has a different projection onto the sensor - e.g. fisheye lenses) no I'm not.

A 50mm on a ff has little or no magnification, the front and back lens are identical. To fit the same field of view onto a smaller sensor there will need to be some sort of opposite magnification (what ever this is called) .

Yup... that's called using a shorter lens and magnification doesn't distort - it is a linear transform.

I think your misunderstanding perspective regarding wideangles, yes moving your position e.g birds eye view is changing the perspective,

I think you're misunderstanding what's going on here.

You are mistaking different focal lengths on the same sized sensor as having the same effect as different focal lengths on different sized sensors.

Assuming an exact crop factor of 2 (and the same aspect ratio to make things exactly equal), trigonometry says that a sensor that is half the size requires a lens that produces a cone of light that is half the diameter for the same field of view. A 25mm lens on an x2 crop will give the same field of view as a 50mm on full frame. It is this that allows us to talk about focal length equivalences. What does change is depth of field at particular apertures (i.e. 2.8 will render depth of field differently for the two images).

but when people are using the term in regards to wideangles, they are on about the perceived distance from something in the foreground (larger) to something in the background (smaller) or vanishing point. This is exaggerate with wideangle lenses.

You are talking about the effect demonstared here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Focal_length.jpg

That is using different focal lengths on a single sensor and moving positions to make the red container appear the same size in each picture. In this case, the lens distorts the perspective.

If I were to use an x2 crop sensor and have lenses half the focal length, I could replicate the exact pictures there simply by taking photos at those positions.

To be fair looking at your pictures this is much lesser problem than i expected, but looking at the perspective I would say the 1st one is the mft

I'm not sure which of the two posts you are referring to there (the order is different in the two posts - in the first post it is 5D2 followed by G3, in the scond post it is G3 first, 5D2 second). Don't forget the fact that they were taken at different positions so you can't compare the perspective - plus they have not been corrercted in post, so you still have the inherent (slight) lens distortions included .

There are actually 2 things that give the first image in the 100% crop away as the micro 4/3rds. The first is the 5D2 has more pixels. When it is viewed at 100%, the 5D2 image will be bigger. The one on the right is bigger. The second is as the 5D2 has a bigger sensor, it works the lens less hard to capture the same information. This can be seen as better contrast in the image in the fine details - it looks sharper.

If we took a wideangle lens and shot a person’s face close up it would make their nose look larger than usual because its exaggerated perspective.

That's very true, but a 16mm lens on a Full Frame is termed wide angle. The same focal length on a MFT isn't wide angle. If you put an 8mm lens on the MFT, and took the same picture as the 16mm on FF from the same position, you'd get the same looking image.

If did this experiment on your 5d then cropped the mft out of the image the person would still have a distorted face would he not?

But if you crop it, you are effectively cropping the focal length too so cutting a MFT sized area out of the FF image is equivalent to changing the focal length by 2....

 

[arad85]

I am as guilty as the next man for taking threads off course but how does any of this go back to a consumer lack of interest in Samsung CSCs using APS-C sensor even though the cameras are very well rated?

Perhaps another way of looking at it....

The CSC appeals to to markets, those wanting to move up from bridge cameras and those looking at augmenting DSLRs.

For those wanting to move up, they will aspire to an SLR as "that's what pro's use". 90+%? will probably go for an entry level DLSR from Canikon. The other 10% need to be attracted away from that and (as has been said above) it's only really Panasonic who have been heavily advertising anything here (the G3 in Yosemite ad being a pefect example).

The person moiving down probably has other intrests: access to decent lenses, ease of use, percieved longevity of brand, second hand market, to name but a few. Personally, I think micro 4/3 is hitting the right balance between quality, size and value here. Good range of lenses, couple of manufacturers supporting bodies, several lens manufacturers supporting it. Personally, I think it is taking off (either that or there's a lot of people dipping their toes in the water and not liking it judging by the equipment that sells here). I'm even considering selling some full frame lenses to get some decent MFT ones - the quality vs size tradeoff is there for me.

Also, don't forget, at the end of the day, EISA awards are only there to enable a pretty sticker to be attached to a box (and a marketing free meal ). Yet another tick box to be able to say "we won!".

 

[rjbell]

Umm.. barring extremes (i.e. where you actually are using a wideangle lens that has a different projection onto the sensor - e.g. fisheye lenses) no I'm not.

Yup... that's called using a shorter lens and magnification doesn't distort - it is a linear transform.


I think you're misunderstanding what's going on here.

You are mistaking different focal lengths on the same sized sensor as having the same effect as different focal lengths on different sized sensors.

Assuming an exact crop factor of 2 (and the same aspect ratio to make things exactly equal), trigonometry says that a sensor that is half the size requires a lens that produces a cone of light that is half the diameter for the same field of view. A 25mm lens on an x2 crop will give the same field of view as a 50mm on full frame. It is this that allows us to talk about focal length equivalences. What does change is depth of field at particular apertures (i.e. 2.8 will render depth of field differently for the two images).



You are talking about the effect demonstared here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Focal_length.jpg

That is using different focal lengths on a single sensor and moving positions to make the red container appear the same size in each picture. In this case, the lens distorts the perspective.

If I were to use an x2 crop sensor and have lenses half the focal length, I could replicate the exact pictures there simply by taking photos at those positions.


I'm not sure which of the two posts you are referring to there (the order is different in the two posts - in the first post it is 5D2 followed by G3, in the scond post it is G3 first, 5D2 second). Don't forget the fact that they were taken at different positions so you can't compare the perspective - plus they have not been corrercted in post, so you still have the inherent (slight) lens distortions included .

There are actually 2 things that give the first image in the 100% crop away as the micro 4/3rds. The first is the 5D2 has more pixels. When it is viewed at 100%, the 5D2 image will be bigger. The one on the right is bigger. The second is as the 5D2 has a bigger sensor, it works the lens less hard to capture the same information. This can be seen as better contrast in the image in the fine details - it looks sharper.

That's very true, but a 16mm lens on a Full Frame is termed wide angle. The same focal length on a MFT isn't wide angle. If you put an 8mm lens on the MFT, and took the same picture as the 16mm on FF from the same position, you'd get the same looking image.

But if you crop it, you are effectively cropping the focal length too so cutting a MFT sized area out of the FF image is equivalent to changing the focal length by 2....

Sorry i stand corrected.

 

[arad85]

Sorry i stand corrected.

Apologies... on reading it back, I come across as a bit off - I didn't mean it that way It was a stream of consciousness post which I didn't proof read before pressing post. I'd like to think I would have come across enthusiastically had you been physically sitting next to me and I could have had a pen and paper to illustrate stuff...

BTW, I find typing things like this out lets me get it straight in my own head

 

[woof woof]

There's no "may" about it - it's physics.

I take your point but...

Looking at your examples the black post on the far side of the road and the porch on the house over there are clearly slightly different sizes in each of the whole images and the car measurements aren't equal either

Maybe it is down to lens variations or slightly out framing but set this up better, well, as "better" as you can, and I believe you'll still see differences between equiv. focal lengths as I did when I tried this for myself.

 

[ernesto]

Back to the Samsung, in another thread there was a size discussion and interestingly the NX20 with APS-C is actually smaller and lighter than the G5 with m4/3.

This also gives a view of the sensor size;

http://camerasize.com/compare/#318,347

So take the mirror out and an APS-C DSLR style camera with viewfinder can be pretty small and light. ANother plus for the Samsung. Still no one buying them though!

 

[rjbell]

Back to the Samsung, in another thread there was a size discussion and interestingly the NX20 with APS-C is actually smaller and lighter than the G5 with m4/3.

This also gives a view of the sensor size;

http://camerasize.com/compare/#318,347

So take the mirror out and an APS-C DSLR style camera with viewfinder can be pretty small and light. ANother plus for the Samsung. Still no one buying them though!

Yes the promise of more compact CSC's from the m4/3 gang has yet to materialise. The zooms maybe a bit smaller but still big for something designed to be compact what every way you look at it.

I do think Samsung are ones to what just because of the shear size of the company they are massive and seem to be investing in sensor development. Yes they haven't the heritage but the csc market isn't for slr customers its for iphone customers and they don't give a monkeys this market is a free for all thats why the new kids are taking such an interest. If they keep getting awards they will be hard to ignore. Look at the tv market 15 years ago. If you wanted a tidy tv you would look at Sony and Panasonic with Samsung and LG being budget options. Now they are up there with the big boys making premium sets and being the only ones in the sector making any money at the minute.

 

[Spy]

I think Samsung are one to watch particularly given how good a camera the NX20 seems to be.

In nearly every sector they enter, they come in as the cheap, undesirable option without any brand pedigree and very quickly put themselves ina premium position through great products, excellent execution and lots of marketing. Just look at the TV, laptop and mobile phone markets !

 

[ernesto]

It may just need time for the assumption of "you have to have Canon or Nikon because of X, Y and Z" when for 90% of people X, Y and Z don't actually matter.

Although having just looked at the price I think my money would go on an OM-D with no logical explanation!

 

[arad85]

Looking at your examples the black post on the far side of the road and the porch on the house over there are clearly slightly different sizes in each of the whole images and the car measurements aren't equal either

A 4% crop on the MFT image brings the field of view to equivalent (and makes the black post as near as damnit the same height in both photos). 4% equates to 1mm incorrect in focal length on the MFT (it's 24mm instead of 25mm) or 2mm incorrect for the 50mm lens (52 instead of 50). That's within experimental error as far as I'm concerned and I'm not interested enough to do the experiment on a tripod etc...

Maybe it is down to lens variations or slightly out framing but set this up better, well, as "better" as you can, and I believe you'll still see differences between equiv. focal lengths as I did when I tried this for myself.

I think it is actually impossible for them to be anything other than equivalent. Mount both sensors on a tripod at exactly the same position and facing exactly the same way and they will "see" the same scene (as light follows physics and travels in straight lines). Unless the lens has a non-linear projection onto the sensor, they have to be equivalent - otherwise Scotty wouldn't be able to say "you cannae change the laws of physics"

 

[rjbell]

Although having just looked at the price I think my money would go on an OM-D with no logical explanation!

Because its the prettiest.

 

[arad85]

Yes the promise of more compact CSC's from the m4/3 gang has yet to materialise. The zooms maybe a bit smaller but still big for something designed to be compact what every way you look at it.

I don't know what planet you live on.... It's not the standard zooms where you compare (although I think the 35-100 f2.8 will be significantly smaller than a 70-200F4), it is elsewhere.

Here are my fast 100mm (equivalent) lenses. The one on the left is a 50mm f1.8 with MFT adapter (it's an old Olympus Zuiko manual lens), the one on the right a 100mm f2.8.

This photo doesn't give the full impression. The Canon is about 30mm larger in diameter and weighs 625g as opposed to the 50mm with adapter at 260g (the lens is a solid metal construction).

 

[rjbell]

I don't know what planet you live on.... It's not the standard zooms where you compare (although I think the 35-100 f2.8 will be significantly smaller than a 70-200F4), it is elsewhere.

Here are my fast 100mm (equivalent) lenses. The one on the left is a 50mm f1.8 with MFT adapter (it's an old Olympus Zuiko manual lens), the one on the right a 100mm f2.8.

This photo doesn't give the full impression. The Canon is about 30mm larger in diameter and weighs 625g as opposed to the 50mm with adapter at 260g (the lens is a solid metal construction).

Your comparing slr's to csc's again? This is not the argument here it's the size difference between m4/3 and aps-c' CSC's. Which contrary to believe is not as big as everyone thinks. This is really down to good marketing by Panasonic and Olympus promising us that there sytem will be significantly smaller which at the moment it isn't. Once sony release a collapsible kit lens there will be even little difference.

 

[arad85]

Your comparing slr's to csc's again? I'm talking csc's comparing the m4/3 to the aps-c's.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... I'll just take the humble pie out of the oven.

Neither Sony nor Samsung seem to have a decent (i.e. fast) lens lineup. It's only in the last year or so that MFT has had a decent set of lenses.

 

[ernesto]

Because its the prettiest.

Exactly - no logical explanation and just a subjective one.

 

[rjbell]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... I'll just take the humble pie out of the oven.

Neither Sony nor Samsung seem to have a decent (i.e. fast) lens lineup. It's only in the last year or so that MFT has had a decent set of lenses.

Sony is at the bottom of the pile here as even Samsung has released some nice pancakes over the last year. Sony seem to be obsessed with bringing out body after body.

Anyway none of the are as compact as i would like, none will fit in my jean pocket. I also really don't want to invest in a second system, thats why i sold my nex. I would like a rx100 with an evf please sony.

 

[Llamaman]

Your comparing slr's to csc's again? This is not the argument here it's the size difference between m4/3 and aps-c' CSC's. Which contrary to believe is not as big as everyone thinks. This is really down to good marketing by Panasonic and Olympus promising us that there sytem will be significantly smaller which at the moment it isn't. Once sony release a collapsible kit lens there will be even little difference.

The first and second photos show the point I was making - if you take just body and kit lens, there is very little size between them. And for the many people who only buy the kit lens and nothing else, this would make the NEX a good choice.
But as soon as you start assembling a kit (isn't that the point of an ILC?), the differences start to add up - especially with telezooms. Your third pic show just how much bigger the NEX zoom is compared to the MFT. And one can assume a similar increase in weight. I'd like to see a NEX UWA too - I'd be surprised if they could get it as small as the Olympus 9-18.

But in the end, size is not the only driver. I discounted NEX because I was disappointed by the lens choice (especially primes) and I hated the handling. Others will hate buttons and prefer a slick, screen-driven system. We're all different and so choice is a good thing

 

[rjbell]

The first and second photos show the point I was making - if you take just body and kit lens, there is very little size between them. And for the many people who only buy the kit lens and nothing else, this would make the NEX a good choice.
But as soon as you start assembling a kit (isn't that the point of an ILC?), the differences start to add up - especially with telezooms. Your third pic show just how much bigger the NEX zoom is compared to the MFT. And one can assume a similar increase in weight. I'd like to see a NEX UWA too - I'd be surprised if they could get it as small as the Olympus 9-18.

But in the end, size is not the only driver. I discounted NEX because I was disappointed by the lens choice (especially primes) and I hated the handling. Others will hate buttons and prefer a slick, screen-driven system. We're all different and so choice is a good thing

I think its only a real issue on large zooms and a probably a lesser issue than most people have thought. It's not much bigger as you put it, when you way up the sensor performance between the two it not much of a sacrifice. Zooms on any csc is to big for there body size, a couple of inches smaller isn't going to get it in your pocket.

There is fresh rumours today about Sony introducing a 3rd system! (come on sony you can't cope with producing lenses for the two you already got) A full Frame NEX what do people thing of that idea? This rumour is been about for a year now but this comes from a valued source to sonyalpharumours.

 

[ernesto]

A full frame Nex is going to make the possibility for smaller lenses ever harder.

The only real way of keeping the body + lens small is to use primes (pancake at that) which may be at odds with what a lot of people actually want to use.

 

[Micehorns]

I sold a Sony Nex for a Samsung NX. I sold the Nex3 plus kit lens for £250, I got a refurb'd NX100, plus 20-50mm and 20mm 2.8 pancake for £220. Wasn't my prime of choice but with how cheap you can get the Samsung lenses, I could buy two NX primes for the price of the E50mm 1.8 (at the time of buying, I see the Sony is cheaper now)

I can't really compare them, I got the Samsung 2 days before I went into hospital and i'm just out. I let my friend borrow it, and I've looked through the pictures.

Sony sensor is superior above ISO400.

Samsung lenses are better wide open and stopped down (The 20-50mm is sharper than the 20mm prime. I had 2 18-55mm Sony lenses and one 16mm, both disappointed and i'm not a pixel peeper, the corner blurring was a real problem for me)

For me, the Samsung has the correct buttons in the right places, it's easier to hold as it's wider, it's a lot heavier than the Nex 3.

Sony have the better tools onboard (HDR, Sweep Panoramic, Multi Frame Noise Reduction, etc)

Samsung has the better menu layout.

Samsung have an EVF (which cost me £29 first hand!). Obviously it can't be compared to the Nex 5n's EVF attachment, though.

Samsung support is shocking, just have a read about the problems people have updating the firmware (and there are a lot of firmware updates). Sony do this smoothly and easily.

Samsungs lenses are cheaper, better and there are a lot of them. I like Samsung's lens belief, they have 2 areas of lenses - : Larger lenses for more specialist needs (The Samsung 85mm 1.4, the Samsung 60mm 2.8 Macro, 12-24mm f4, 16-50mm f2.8 and the 18-200 video lens) then they have their cheaper, pancake lenses (20-50mm, 30mm f2, 20mm 2.8, 45mm 1.8 and 16mm 2.4).

This is why i'm putting my faith (not all of it lol) in Samsung, they came one year earlier than Sony and they have those lenses I've mentioned in the above paragraph. I have no doubt Sony will counter with 3 good lenses in a months time (11-24mm? 16-50mm f2.8 and the 35mm 1.8)

I find it sad that Samsung aren't trying to advertise the 85mm f1.4 to photographers, it sometimes drops to £400 and is the best lens Samsung have ever made. It's all their own fault, though.

EDIT : The Sony's 720p was also far superior the Samsungs 720p which has the same look at those Hong Kong spy pen video recorders.

Edit 2:

Samsung have been talking about this for a year or two now. I want that completely manually controlled Samsung camera and the medium format camera. The only one to make it into production is the white NX1000 on the right :thumbsdown: