Selecting a digital ILC system
Selecting a digital ILC system
(OP)
I thought I'd take this in a little different direction than John Bakers' thread on photography, more focused on the hardware.
I'm very interested in getting a mirrorless digital interchangeable lens camera. The mirror seems to me to be a vestigial structure left over from the film days, sort of like an appendix. The two primary opposing forces in selecting a system seem to image quality vs size & weight of the camera & lenses. Just as with film, sensor size is the primary factor in determining image quality. Bigger is better. However, bigger sensors mean bigger camera bodies and lenses. I still own multiple SLR's and a medium format Hasselblad and all their expensive and heavy lenses. I'm not interested in anything as big and heavy as a full frame digital SLR, too much to lug around. On the other hand, I want better image quality than what's available in most of the PHD cameras (1/2.3" or 1/1.7" (this nomenclature makes no sense, I've seen it explained, still makes no sense)).

So that leaves 3 sensor sizes; Apps-C, Micro Four Thirds & 1". APS-C seems to be fairly widely used and not too expensive but still pretty big and heavy. I'm really leaning toward Micro Four Thirds however there are only about 3 manufactures making it and it seems to be more expensive. The Olympus OM-D E-M1 heads my list of bodies, they have a nice line of PRO zoom lenses, a 7-14 F2.8, 12-40 F2.8 & 40-150 F2.8 that would cover all my needs except for macro work. Note that you can double those focal lengths to get the 35mm equivalents. Unfortunately, buying that line up right now would cost $4,300 on Amazon. I pretty much plan on this next acquisition to be my last camera system so I want it to be something I can use for at least the next 20 years. Maybe that's just not realistic in this digital age of instant obsolescence.
I'd like to here others experience on sensor size and selecting a digital ILC system.
I'm very interested in getting a mirrorless digital interchangeable lens camera. The mirror seems to me to be a vestigial structure left over from the film days, sort of like an appendix. The two primary opposing forces in selecting a system seem to image quality vs size & weight of the camera & lenses. Just as with film, sensor size is the primary factor in determining image quality. Bigger is better. However, bigger sensors mean bigger camera bodies and lenses. I still own multiple SLR's and a medium format Hasselblad and all their expensive and heavy lenses. I'm not interested in anything as big and heavy as a full frame digital SLR, too much to lug around. On the other hand, I want better image quality than what's available in most of the PHD cameras (1/2.3" or 1/1.7" (this nomenclature makes no sense, I've seen it explained, still makes no sense)).

So that leaves 3 sensor sizes; Apps-C, Micro Four Thirds & 1". APS-C seems to be fairly widely used and not too expensive but still pretty big and heavy. I'm really leaning toward Micro Four Thirds however there are only about 3 manufactures making it and it seems to be more expensive. The Olympus OM-D E-M1 heads my list of bodies, they have a nice line of PRO zoom lenses, a 7-14 F2.8, 12-40 F2.8 & 40-150 F2.8 that would cover all my needs except for macro work. Note that you can double those focal lengths to get the 35mm equivalents. Unfortunately, buying that line up right now would cost $4,300 on Amazon. I pretty much plan on this next acquisition to be my last camera system so I want it to be something I can use for at least the next 20 years. Maybe that's just not realistic in this digital age of instant obsolescence.
I'd like to here others experience on sensor size and selecting a digital ILC system.
----------------------------------------
The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.





RE: Selecting a digital ILC system
> If you can see your subject in low light, you can see it in the viewfinder with the mirror. The sensor isn't necessarily going to be as good at that. The converse is that if the sensor can't see the subject, then taking a photo might be moot, although you could run a long exposure.
> The standard SLR viewfinder blocks out a bunch of light, which makes taking normal picture in bright conditions relatively easier. Trying to shade the display with one hand while shooting with the other seems to make for a less than ideal situation.
in general, the dimensioned formats are truly a vestige from the days of vidicon imager tubes. However, not sensors are geared toward film camera formats; there very high resolution sensors aimed at the cell phone market as well as just general imaging. Forza has made a 133MP sensor as part of their 100+MP sensor line: http://www.forzasilicon.com/forza-100-mp-cam-platf... It's more of an HD format, though: 15360x8640, which is beyond even 8k. Assuming you drop this on an 8x10, that works out to over 1000 ppi, or, equivalently, its resolution is good enough for a 40x50 inch poster
TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers
RE: Selecting a digital ILC system
Another advantage of the mirror is that you can correct your focus. This could be necessary because you are shooting something that is behind whatever your auto-focus is aiming at. It could be necessary because you are using one of your old, dumb lenses. People in the early sixties made good optics, but they failed to anticipate how my Nikon D7100 would do auto-focus. Damn them.
--
JHG
RE: Selecting a digital ILC system
I shot both 35mm and 2 1/4 square (120 220). and I have boxes full of hardware.
After fooling around with crappy generic digital cameras I finally broke down and bough a Sony alpha.
Not the greatest, but it does a very nice job.
Even good lenses are not forever. As systems change the demand on the lenses changes as well.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, Plymouth Tube
RE: Selecting a digital ILC system
RE: Selecting a digital ILC system
The Sony Alpha's get good reviews. I've always disliked Sony's use of proprietary hardware like their stupid memory sticks that were bulkier, slower and more expensive than generic memory cards. Maybe they've changed their ways, I should look at them more closely.
Don't mistake the number of pixels for image quality. Just like film, the quality of the image is directly proportional to the amount of light hitting it (area). High pixel count small sensors have really bad noise problems and limited color gamut. Of course, a large sensor with two few pixels will look grainy if printed too large, just like high ISO film looked grainy.
None of my old film lenses are auto focus so I don't feel the need to re-use anything. I've never had a lens go bad, some of the cameras and lens I have are as old as I am. I just want to re-buy everything only once more. It kills me to buy the same stuff over and over like music: 8-tracks, cassettes, LP's, CD's, MP3's and now streaming services for the same old Led Zep album. I won't do it.
----------------------------------------
The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.
RE: Selecting a digital ILC system
Canon PowerShot S10: 2.1MP 1/2" CCD sensor
Canon IXUS v: 2.1MP 1/2" CCD sensor
Minolta DiMAGE 7Hi: 5.2MP 2/3" CCD sensor
Sony DSC-H2: 6.2MP 1/2.5" CCD sensor
Sony A100: 10.1MP APS-C CCD sensor
Sony A65: 24.3MP APS-C CMOS sensor
Sony NEX-3N: 16.1MP APS-C CMOS sensor
Now while I really like my A65 DSLR, it is a bit of brick. Granted, it's smaller than a full-fram, but compared to the new mirror-less Sony's it still huge. For example the A65 is 132 x 97 x 81 mm's and weights 622g (body only) while my NEX-3N mirror-less is 110 x 62 x 35 mm's and weights 272g (body only). Granted, it's only 16.1MP compared to my A65 which is 24.3MP, which is why I'm seriously looking at the Sony a6000, which has the same sensor as the A65 yet it's only 120 x 67 x 45 mm's and weights 344g (body only). And then there are the E-mount lens which are much more compact and lighter than the A-mout lens used with the A65. But like you, I've got a lot invested in my DSLR set-up. Note that when I got my A65 I gave my wife the A100 but she said it was too heavy so I bought HER the Sony NEX-3N but when I was traveling I started to take it with me and now I'm hooked on the mirror-less idea. It's just that the NEX-3N is just not enough for what I want so the a6000 looks ideal.
Anyway, I suggest that you stop at your local Best Buy or camera shop and pick-up and handle the Sony a6000 and look at the E-mount lens that are available as I think you'll be impressed.
Here's a review on the a6000:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-a6000
I hope this helps and note that I have no financial interest is Sony or Best Buy, I'm just offering this as my humble advice
John R. Baker, P.E.
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
RE: Selecting a digital ILC system
John R. Baker, P.E.
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
RE: Selecting a digital ILC system
I have not been in a Best Buy for years but there is one not too far away, we used to have a pretty good Wolf Camera where you could get a nice feel for gear but they are long gone.
----------------------------------------
The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.
RE: Selecting a digital ILC system
When I bought my DSLR, I was warned to not use my old flash in the hotshoe. The nice people at the store claimed that my twenty five year-old flash would send a voltage spike back into my camera. My old camera had a light meter. My new one is a computer.
--
JHG
RE: Selecting a digital ILC system
John R. Baker, P.E.
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
RE: Selecting a digital ILC system
I think your choice of camera should be determined by the kinds of subject and environments you use your camera for. Do you travel a lot? Intend to bring your best camera on vacation? Are you an avid outdoorsman who wants the camera to come up the mountain with you? Will you be selling your pictures? Do you take studio portraits? Perhaps you want to do some semi-professional photography... sounds like a fun kind of "job" post-retirement (just gathering hints from your other posts, here). I would answer these questions, before selecting a type of technology I prefer.
Like you, I think mirrors are vestiges of technology long past, but I chose my latest camera for many other reasons: I wanted a camera for astrophotography, so long exposures in dim light were driving my choice. The features I was looking for (on-sensor noise suppression, full-frame, large pixel fill ratio, live view, etc.) were ideal on a narrow list of camera types (in my price range). So I quietly curse the stupid mirror, which I have to lock-up all the time, but with practice I got it to turn out many very satisfying pictures. Because it still is an ideal camera for the kinds of pictures I want.
STF
RE: Selecting a digital ILC system
With any good camera system, you should be able to take almost any kind of photos you want if you have the correct lenses and accessories. It's the trade off on size & weight vs. image quality that I'm wrestling with. The Micro Four Thirds sensor seems to be the sweet spot to me, big enough to gather a lot of light but small enough to keep the weight down a lot.
I've been using a Panasonic DMC-LX2S 10.2MP Digital Camera with 4x Optical Image Stabilized Zoom for nearly 10 years. It's not a bad little camera but I miss having a more capable system and better image quality. I tend to keep things for a long time, almost never sell to trade up to the latest & greatest.
----------------------------------------
The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.
RE: Selecting a digital ILC system
Outdoors and wildlife are typically hand-held, but close-ups and "still-life" need a tripod and a bit extra light, as you know. So weight is a factor in only one of these situations. I agree that a well-chosen camera should be suitable for most if not all situations you expect to use it in, so I'd give weight a 50% score on the priority list.
I have enjoyed reading this photographer's webpages: http://www.clarkvision.com/ which you may find helpful.
His reviews are VERY technical. I think he used to design the optical/imaging systems on spacecraft.
Yes, much of it is astrophotography, but he's also got wildlife stuff like this:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/images.africa...
Every photo is annotated with the equiment and technique he used to take it.
STF
RE: Selecting a digital ILC system
John R. Baker, P.E.
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
RE: Selecting a digital ILC system
SparWeb - thanks for that link to Clarkvision reviews. Even though he seems to be testing full frame cameras exclusively, there is a lot of good data there. In particular, he has a lot of plots of S/N and dynamic range of available sensors in which he also overlays typical fine grain film capability. It shows that the better sensors are exceeding what film can do which further reinforces my belief that full frame sensors are overkill.
However, I disagree with your comments about weight. My SLR kit weight is dominated by lens weight and size. My medium format kit lives in it's own wheeled suitcase. Tripods & monopods add more weight and size. All that stuff has to be dragged along when traveling (I never travel with the medium format). If you don't take it you won't get any pictures with it. It's all related to sensor size. Smaller sensors mean only slightly smaller bodies but significantly smaller lenses which leads to smaller tripods, etc.
----------------------------------------
The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.