Discussion in 'Micro 4/3 News and Rumors' started by Ranger Rick, Apr 26, 2013.
Not known for his reticence... An upper-end Steve Huff?
diglloyd - Blog
Thom Hogan's Data
Mirrorless Shipments Down Year-to-Year | Sans Mirror â€” mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan
There is another worldwide economic slowdown brewing. Not that very many economies were roaring!
There's a lot of fairly warm air in that story...
Steve Huff lost his credibility with me a while ago with his ego so out of control that rarely can he avoid referring to how much influence he has had on the entire world of Leica. Of course he has no statistical data to support what he asserts but after all...who needs data? He's the incredible Steve Huff!
As for the other blog...It is well articulated but short on facts. Just read the entire article and it will leave you shaking your head about the conclusions drawn about M43 and a range of unfounded assertions.
100% Agreed. And when I questioned his integrity, he invited me to bugger off his "free" site. What a PINHEAD!
I disagree with him on the bokeh of MFT. I've seen plenty of images that produce great bokeh and bokeh is more of a personal choice on how/if you like it. But I do agree that it's a shame that there hasn't been much third party lens cooperation like Carl Zeiss. Although those lenses are very expensive.
But we do have Voigtlander making some awesome (and expensive) lenses that do give you more DOF control.
I read the DL piece. The main thrust of his argument is that technological advances will benefit APS-C sensors and for some reason, m4/3 will not be able to reap those same benefits. This doesn't make much sense to me.
As for Zeiss' lack of support for m4/3, I also disagree. Zeiss has more options available for m4/3 than they do for any other format (excepting the Zeiss branded zooms for the Sony Alpha system). Zeiss has around a dozen lenses in production that fit the m4/3 cameras exceptionally well: the ZM line. All that is required is a simple and readily available adapter. Once again, excepting the Sony lenses, none of the other camera mounts that Zeiss supports feature AF [wether the promised AF Fuji lenses ever materialize remains to be seen]. Furthermore, if I recall correctly, Zeiss cine lenses can be had in native m4/3 mounts.
Suffice it to say, I don't think m4/3 is in any danger of becoming irrelevant any time soon.
Hi Dan.. I agree on every word of your and the worst thing is that his photography skills are most useless and pics are always crappy . He is just an other online salesman ..full stop :smile::smile:
the only good thing about steve huff is that he isn't ken rockwell
Well, I thought it was a reasonable article! It didn't come across to me as too heavily bashing u43. Photography gear is all about engineering compromises. I like u43 since the size/quality/flexibility tradeoff suits my needs/wants. I know that ultimate IQ needs big sensors, but that means bulk, weight and cost.
On whether u43 is doomed - well, that is both 100% correct and laughable at the same time. Will we be using u43 in 50years?, 100? Probably not. In 5?, 10? - well I think that's pretty certain. With cameras such as the E-M5, G5, GH6 etc and the superb lens selection from Oly, Panasonic, Voightlander/Cosina, Sigma, SLRgear and of course Leica via adapters, I really can't see u43 going away soon. Crickey, we've just had new camera launches from Panasonic and expect Oly launches just round the corner!
Oh, and finally, if we judge cameras by results, then u43 is a triumph!
Hahhaah ....yes Ken is the most useless blogger and full of lies and assumptions .
As somebody who has used the 4/3 sensor for quite some time (before m4/3, I just sold my 4/3 gear) I have the exactly opposing view. The gap between 4/3 and Full Frame/APS-C was much much bigger and it is narrowing. With the new iteration OM-D vs NEX-7 the gap is so small that I am starting to find it irrelevant. With every next iteration, I am sure it will narrow even further.
Secondly, somebody told him about the lens size difference with 4/3 vs APS-C and he brushed it off quoting that a FIXED LENS APS-C camera has a small lens. Well no ****! Try the Sony 18-200mm vs the Olympus 14-150mm and you'll see what size savings we're talking about. NEX lenses are waaaaay bigger than m4/3. Even the Carl Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 is larger than ANY m4/3 prime bar the 75mm f/1.8
Thirdly, his view depends a lot about bokeh. Bokeh bokeh bokeh. Every third word seems to be bokeh. Guess what, some people don't care that much about super narrow DOF. For starters, DOF is a problem with long lenses on full frame, not an advantage. If you are a 28mm or 35mm EFL lens shooter, maybe it matters to you in which case, yes, m4/3 probably is not the correct solution for you.
Indeed, shallow DOF is also bad for landscapes, which is a major application of wide lenses.
Everyday a blogger, prominent or not predicts the death of a system. It generates traffic to their sites.
I read them out of curiosity but I also don't take them all that seriously. I'll stop using something when it stops working for me.
Piggy backing along your comments, a larger depth of field is useful for portraits too, especially if photographing more than one person.
Another clueless blog post by a supposed expert who doesn't get the point of m4/3. I respect Lloyd's equipment testing but take his opinions with a giant block of salt. Anybody who says m4/3 should have lenses with equivalent DOF as larger sensor formats completely misses the essence and strength of m4/3 or is chest-thumping the "larger is better" line just to troll. If you want shallower DOF go with a larger sensor--it's really that simple. Meanwhile those of us with an ounce of common sense will continue to enjoy the liberating size and weight savings of m4/3.
The same arguments were thrown at 35mm when it came out - that the format was too small and the quality will suffer. Which was true. Medium and large format will give you better quality. But 35mm cameras could go places and do things larger format cameras could not do.
One thing I do agree with is size of the camera - if we stick with 3" LCDs m43 cameras will not be much smaller than APC/APS sensor cameras. How many would go with 2.5" LCDs to get smaller bodies?
He lost me when he started talking about the RX100 being great. You can't logically argue that 1" is good, APS-C is good, and the size in between is not good. Each format size is a compromise, and a lot has to do with execution.
It's actually much simpler than he makes it. Look at the available systems: Sony NEX, Samsung NX, Fuji X, etc. Look at the lenses they have. Try them. Look at the cameras, and try them. I use almost all of those systems, and MFTs still has many unique advantages. Size remains a major one. There is a real and noticeable difference between my Oly 75/1.8 and anything like it for other systems. Same for the Oly 45/1.8 sizewise against any 90mm equivalent option out there. Even the 75mm equivalent option for Sony is noticeably bigger/heavier. Maybe Sony comes out with a 90mm equivalent option which is as small as the Oly 45, but by that time maybe Oly brings out a new 45 that is as small as the Pana 14/2.5.
Collapsible lenses have the potential to be a size equalizer amongst the formats, but not all of us like collapsible lenses. I'm not a big fan of them.
Lastly, I'm surprised that someone as knowledgeable as Lloyd would make the statement "And the 'look' of shorter focal lengths is less pleasing for some purposes". There is no such look. Bizarre.
Voigtlander has 3 out or about to be out. But Zeiss has 4 or 5 and I believe that they are not just manual only. It'd be nice if Voigtlander would release a lens that would have AF capabilities. I'd also love to see Sigma really jump in and actually make some lenses specifically for MFT. You think they would when the 19mm and 30mm package together sold out everywhere in like a week or 2 in MFT but the NEX were still available for a long time after.
Separate names with a comma.