:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:I'll remember this for the next time I have a debate with Tesselator
(couldn't help it!)
Keith
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:I'll remember this for the next time I have a debate with Tesselator
We will finally see a true comparison, pixel to pixel of m4/3rds and Sony when they are released because the overall pixel density of it and the GH2 will be about the same. There will be no more questions!+1 on that!
I would love an E7 or EP4 with a Sony sensor.
True. But that won't stop the arguments about the answers...There will be no more questions!
And why is that a shame? Both Panasonic and Olympus made micro four thirds a closed standard (4/3rds also is a closed standard but Olympus let more people in initially). They clarified that much on its creation. And Sony doesn't have to play 2nd to the wishes and desires of the other two- they are their own force. I really think these new Sonys will do better than what they are seen at first pass when good lenses are put on them. I also think it's not so hot to compare 100% pixel peep and JPEG when a RAW comparison and a resize down to even 14 MP would probably blow whatever 4/3rds has now out of the water.Looks interesting - in a typical Sony kitchen sink fashion, shame Sony didn't target their efforts on the m4/3rds standard... we could use the Sony tech combined with m4/3rds lenses.
Cheers
Brian
I probably have larger pockets than you. I think this combo would easily fit in my pocketI don't see much difference on that end on a Nex 7 and the Olympus 4/3rds since neither fits in a pocket with the good lenses. Of course that's just me.
- Raist
You just answered your own question... it's a shame because all that techery is going to waste without decently matched lenses - NEX looks totally out of balance to me... nicely sized bodies, shame about the frankenlenses :deadhorse:And why is that a shame? Both Panasonic and Olympus made micro four thirds a closed standard (4/3rds also is a closed standard but Olympus let more people in initially). They clarified that much on its creation. And Sony doesn't have to play 2nd to the wishes and desires of the other two- they are their own force. I really think these new Sonys will do better than what they are seen at first pass when good lenses are put on them. I also think it's not so hot to compare 100% pixel peep and JPEG when a RAW comparison and a resize down to even 14 MP would probably blow whatever 4/3rds has now out of the water.
That said, to me as far as the Nex7 goes, the main issue for me is quality lenses at a small size. I think the body looks pretty interesting and they finally announced two lenses which will look like they will be pretty good (ironically sort of equivalent to the two new good Olympus lenses in the type of photography they can do)... and that looks cool but I want small.
I don't see much difference on that end on a Nex 7 and the Olympus 4/3rds since neither fits in a pocket with the good lenses. Of course that's just me.
- Raist
Brian, it is all relative to your shooting style. The NEX system was designed to change the way the photographer composes and shoots, so lens balancing becomes irrelevant depending on your stance. For me, shooting at waist level is the new norm and the lens barrel becomes an extension of the body, arguably making for an even more steady platform. For other people, this mode of shooting will be unacceptable but again, for me - damn it is fun and has improved my style of photography immensely.You just answered your own question... it's a shame because all that techery is going to waste without decently matched lenses - NEX looks totally out of balance to me... nicely sized bodies, shame about the frankenlenses :deadhorse:
If they'd tapped into the m4/3rds standard, they could have made compelling bodies with well matched lenses. Missed opportunity imho.
Cheers
Brian
I did think about that, I wish the ergonomics were better. Would like to see how it feels. Not a big fan of a slower zoom but compared to an ultra compact, it's offset by the sensor I guess.I probably have larger pockets than you. I think this combo would easily fit in my pocket
[]
as would the GF3 or the E-PM1 with 14mm f/2.5, 17mm f/2.8 or 20mm f/1.7.
But my point Brian is that *they can't tap into the m4/3rds standard* because both Panasonic and Olympus made it quite closed! And the Nex is finally going to have good lenses. As far as cameras that can't fit in a pocket, they are in good company with micro four thirds, though finally micro four thirds is going with some models towards smaller, but there are still some compromises.You just answered your own question... it's a shame because all that techery is going to waste without decently matched lenses - NEX looks totally out of balance to me... nicely sized bodies, shame about the frankenlenses :deadhorse:
If they'd tapped into the m4/3rds standard, they could have made compelling bodies with well matched lenses. Missed opportunity imho.
Cheers
Brian
It's closed in the sense Olympus controls the standard. Panasonic developed it with Olympus, but I'm not sure they have much control in it. Other manufacturers can create cameras based on the standard to the best of my knowledge. Unlike 4/3s where anyone could 'join' without creating a 4/3s product, a m4/3s product has to be released to join the m4/3s group.But my point Brian is that *they can't tap into the m4/3rds standard* because both Panasonic and Olympus made it quite closed!
The most important difference compared to some other camera system standards is that the interface specifications are available to potential suppliers of lenses etc. When Sigma and other 3rd party suppliers make lenses for Nikon AF-S or Canon EF standard, it's based on reverse engineering, sometimes with the result that the camera manufacturers make changes that Sigma etc. hadn't anticipated, with malfunctioning lenses as a result.It's closed in the sense Olympus controls the standard. Panasonic developed it with Olympus, but I'm not sure they have much control in it. Other manufacturers can create cameras based on the standard to the best of my knowledge. Unlike 4/3s where anyone could 'join' without creating a 4/3s product, a m4/3s product has to be released to join the m4/3s group.
Sony couldn't take m4/3s extend it and still call it m4/3s, but I'm fairly sure they could join and create cameras and lenses matching the standard if they wished. If you have a link that says otherwise I'd be interested in reading it. Cosina is obviously in as they are using the m4/3's logo.
The most important difference compared to some other camera system standards is that the interface specifications are available to potential suppliers of lenses etc. When Sigma and other 3rd party suppliers make lenses for Nikon AF-S or Canon EF standard, it's based on reverse engineering, sometimes with the result that the camera manufacturers make changes that Sigma etc. hadn't anticipated, with malfunctioning lenses as a result.
... which makes them both partly open standards, the difference being that with m4/3, you can also participate as a camera manufacturer.Sony NEX lens mount specs are al publicly available.
- raist
Of course it isn't easy. If anybody could jump in, the quality standard would deteriorate faster than you can say microfourthirds, destroying the brand long term. The point is that it's possible to participate, as opposed to most other camera system standards.Both are closed standards. You can't participate as a camera manufacturer on micro four thirds without an agreement and both Olympus and Panasonic made it very clear it wasn't going to be easy to get in if someone gets in.
4/3rds was more open and it's still a closed standard.
I don't know where people get the idea that Fuji or Sony could just "jump in" anytime they want.
- Raist
Give the specific size you would need to fit in a pocket. If you spec something like a 1" thick P&S, then much more conversation about an interchangeable lens cameras is moot, since it isn't going to happen.And why is that a shame? Both Panasonic and
I don't see much difference on that end on a Nex 7 and the Olympus 4/3rds since neither fits in a pocket with the good lenses. Of course that's just me.
- Raist
From the point of view of expecting an interchangeable lens camera to fit in a pocket maybe (then there's the Pentax Q but let's ignore that). From the point of view that it puts micro four thirds and the Nexes in not so distant categories usability wise on the size end, I think it's worth mentioning.Give the specific size you would need to fit in a pocket. If you spec something like a 1" thick P&S, then much more conversation about an interchangeable lens cameras is moot, since it isn't going to happen.
My point is not just that it's hard. My point is that micro four thirds *is* a closed standard. Whether you can really participate or not, whether in pragmatic terms is like almost no participation or not is another question.Of course it isn't easy. If anybody could jump in, the quality standard would deteriorate faster than you can say microfourthirds, destroying the brand long term. The point is that it's possible to participate, as opposed to most other camera system standards.