Miniaturization in photographic equipment: from film to digital mirrors, from DSLRs to mirrorless cameras
I have no doubt that most of those who read this post were born in the film era, and remember very well why it is necessary to light a special red lamp, and how the fixer differs from the developer. In our bathrooms, we turned the otschelkannuyu film into real photographs, and many still indulge in this. But, digital photography today is out of competition, in fact, it has existed since 1975. And the first digital mirror appeared already in 1991. The Kodak DCS 100 was a modified Nikon F3 film with an external hard drive. At first, these were expensive and bulky decisions. In addition, up until the appearance of Nikon D1 and Canon EOS 1D in 2001, the quality of images obtained from the film radically surpassed the figure.
Development process
That the future for a digital photo became finally clear in 2003. And the success of the first inexpensive Canon 300D DSLR, with a price tag of less than $ 1,000, is proof of that. Up until 2008, the SLRs reigned almost completely on the market, but serious cameras with interchangeable optics, but without a mirror, lagged behind the appearance of the 300D for just one year.
')
Kodak DCS 100 with external hard disk unit
Paradoxically, the pioneer here was the Epson company with the R-D1 rangefinder, compatible with the Leica M bayonet. In 2006, Leica itself introduced the M8 rangefinder, under the same bayonet, and the M9 in 2009. But neither the one nor the other, nor the third camera did not have autofocus (and the price was biting), so they did not find much mass. But our Prime Minister likes it.
Epson R-D1 - a pioneer in the world of mirrorless
Perhaps it is the ability to autofocus, coupled with a large sensor, and became the key to the success of DSLRs. While most digital cameras focus solely on contrast sensors, the design features of DSLRs allowed them to use more accurate and fast phase focusing, instead of or in addition to contrast.
Mirrorless in the modern sense of the term appeared in 2008, when Olympus and Panasonic introduced the Micro 4/3 system (now their cameras or lenses for the Micro 4/3 system were also presented by Kodak, Cosina / Voigtländer, Carl Zeiss AG, Jos. Schneider Optische Werke GmbH, Komamura Corporation, Sigma Corporation, Tamron, Astrodesign, Yasuhara, Lensbaby, Samyang, Tokina and Blackmagic Design; the optics from these manufacturers are completely interchangeable). In 2010, Sony came up with the E system and Samsung with the NX, in 2011 Nikon introduced the 1-inch Nikon 1, and the Pentax even more compact system Q. Canon and Fujifilm introduced the EOS M and Fujifilm X systems, respectively, in 2012. In 2013, Sony introduced the “full frame” FE system, partially compatible with the Crop E. And in 2014, Samsung expanded its system with the one-inch NX Mini. In April of the same year, Leica introduced its Leica T APS-C mirrorless mirror (Typ 701) for the new bayonet of the same name.
Kodak unveiled its first Micro 4/3 S1 camera in 2013
If DSLRs are so good, why did almost all the major photo manufacturers present their mirrorless models, and many companies even turned down the production of DSLRs? Now we will understand. First, it's about size and reliability. It is not necessary to allocate space for a mirror in a mirrorless, and you can completely dispense with moving parts - electronic gates are almost as good as mechanical ones now. Therefore, mirrorless cameras themselves are compact - my favorite example is the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 and Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 cameras with a weight of 173 and 180 grams (without batteries). And this is with the full Micro 4/3 bayonet and full compatibility with the entire fleet of the corresponding optics!
Autofocus, viewfinder, optics
Of course, the story with autofocus is still true - the top SLRs really focus faster and more precisely in the twilight, but every year this difference melts before our eyes. And if there is enough light, then some mirrorless cameras focus even faster than DSLRs, while maintaining high accuracy. For example, the Olympus OM-D E-M10 with the right lens is very fast. Of all the cameras I have tested, the best results in focusing in the dark are demonstrated by the flagship Fujifilm X-T1 - it is not inferior to amateur DSLRs thanks to the presence of matching contrast and phase sensors. I filmed night concerts with this camera, the result was impressive. I’ll just say that I didn’t try E-M10 personally in the club shooting, but knowledgeable people claim that it performs no worse, although it relies solely on contrast sensors. But Sony cameras, like Fujifilm, have phase sensors, but this does not allow the A7 and A6000 cameras to achieve equally good results. Consequently, on these cameras it is very difficult to photograph children and animals at home, with normal indoor lighting.
The device is a conventional DSLR
The electronic viewfinder of the flaw gradually became a virtue. The first electronic viewfinders were slow and displayed a delayed image, the color quality and resolution were disgusting, and the field of view was cropped. Now there are two cameras with simply huge viewfinders, this is the Olympus E-M1 or Fujifilm X-T1. In this case, the problem with the lag is completely eliminated. And what you see “through the eye” of the camera fully corresponds to the photo you receive if you now release the shutter. I have had it so many times that I rebuilt my old DSLR under one light, it changed, and I did not have time to figure out that it was time to change the exposure settings, looking into the mirror viewfinder. Mirrorless users are insured against this.
In addition to this, optics for mirrorless are more compact, and thanks to a short working segment, they are compatible with all decent optics from DSLRs via adapters.
Roughly speaking, mirrorless is smaller, faster and easier to handle. At the same time they provide quality photos at the level of DSLRs. Do they provide? And why, in fact, no. The sensors, which are in mirrorless, in fact, are no different from the sensors in the SLR, the exception is unique design, such as sensors Micro 4/3 and Fujifilm. And what kind of processor and software is there, it depends on the specific manufacturer. The main thing is not to judge the quality by trying full-time optics. Sony should try with SEL35F18, SEL-50F18 or SEL-55F18Z lenses, Olympus, Panasonic and Kodak with Olympus ED 12-40mm f / 2.8 Pro M.Zuiko Digital or Olympus ED 75mm f / 1.8, Fujfilm - with 35 or Fujifilm XF 56mm f / 1.2 R and Fujifilm XF 16-55, and so on. Otherwise, the capabilities of the camera will not open.
Sony a7 with a Minolta lens mounted through an adapter with a translucent mirror
Smaller dimensions, high quality
Miniaturization is a cool thing. Previously, a 50 MB hard drive was as large as a car engine, but now the same amount of data is placed on a MicroSD card, the size of which is no larger than a nail. Here you can remember mobile phones, weapons and all computer equipment, in general. At the same time, I often see in the comments to our videos and on forums opinions in the spirit: “here is fudzhik taxis, but why they have APS-C, then, if I stuck a full frame, I would buy” or “cool Olympus , but, damn, this is double-cropped, would be at least with APS-C, I would take ten at once, and so on ... I will give an example from personal experience. I was one of the first users of the full-frame RX1R camera, I also had a Sony A7, but I took my best photos on cameras with a 1.5 and 2 crop factor. And we shoot all the videos for the Pro Hi-Tech channel, exactly same, on the crop 1.6. When I realized this, I had a full full frame. 35 mm sensors or the so-called “full frame” is a format that was considered “small” in the film era, as it was smaller than “medium” (cameras of “medium format” - Hasselblad, Phase One, Mamiya, etc.) , if you read this far, for sure, you heard about them). And at times less than the "big format". But, marketers from companies such as Canon and Nikon have firmly decided to push the idea that the "full frame" is cool and everything else is not. And it still feeds them well.
Zack Arias lucidly talks about cropping and full frames (Russian subtitles)
Let us objectively understand what gives the "full fayem" sensor at the moment. First, it allows you to provide an effective 36 megapixels. This is A2 format with journal quality - 300 dpi. If you print A2 every day, then this is what you need. And for billboards it will not be enough - you need at least 50 megapixels, like in “medium format” cameras. On the other hand, if you actually print your photos, maximum, in a journal, or even just keep a family archive, then your 36-megapixel photo archive will very quickly begin to occupy terabytes. But, the difference even on 4K-screen with the same 16 megapixels you will not see. Because (trend of the season!) 4K is 8 megapixels. Yes, just like that, a “mega-sharp” movie in 4K is “only” 8 megapixels. A 16 megapixel is more than enough to print in an expensive glossy magazine, I can say this with confidence in my experience in the magazines CHIP, Playboy, Avtomir, Game Navigator and DJ Mag. The exception is a photo on the cover or advertising pages that you may want to make. Here, the more the better. And, again, the 50-megapixel "medium" format is being controlled.
The ratio of the sizes between the large format sensor (right), medium (left) and all small formats (fit inside), including the "full frame"
The second advantage of the 35 mm sensors over smaller sensors is the ability to work at high ISO values, but this is, again, not a professional approach. The higher the ISO value set on your camera, the lower the detail level, and the presence or absence of noise is already the tenth matter. Lose details - lose quality. Photographers always think first about the light, and only then get down to business. In the course are flashes, lamps, tripods - anything, just not to raise the ISO. And this is one of the reasons why medium format cameras, until recently, were generally limited to a maximum ISO 800 value. The main hitch was, of course, in the features of a CCD.
Test image to assess the noise level on the Canon EOS 5D Mk. II ( top ) and Olympus OM-D E-M10 ( low y) - ISO 6400
Well, let's take a sober assessment of the difference in the dimensions of the matrix - APS-C or even Micro 4/3 is not as much less than 35 mm as 35 mm is less than a large format. Therefore, modern Micro 4/3 sensors, in terms of noise at high ISO, are only a few percent lagging behind the “full frame” sensors of previous years - in particular, the results of the Olympus OM-D E-M10 are about three percent lagging behind the results of the Canon EOS 5D Mk. II, and the dynamic range of the E-M10 is even higher (12.3 versus 11.9 for Canon).
Thirdly, the “full frame” allows you to get a full picture on the optics made for 35-sensors. In the same way as APS-C allows you to get a full picture on the optics made under the APS-C. A "mikra" under the "mikru". At the same time, medium format optics on the "full frame" will give a cropped image that does not reveal all the charms of the medium format. And, of course, large format optics ... ooh, even a “medium format” camera is not talking about any “full-fledged” picture. But, for fans of old Soviet lenses, made just under 35 mm format, this can be important.
Our old video about manual lenses and Soviet optics
Fourth, the depth of the sharply depicted space on the same lens on the "full frame" will be less, therefore, you can better blur the background. However, this advantage is very controversial, since high-aperture optics (up to f / 0.95) has long been sold for a reasonable amount of money, including Crop. And too small a depth of field is far from always desirable - in landscape photography, for example, on the contrary, the diaphragm has to be clamped.
Lens Voigtlander Nokton 17.5mm f / 0.95 Lens for M4 / 3
As a conclusion, the latest 35 mm sensor of the latest generation will provide a number of advantages over the modern Micro 4/3 matrix, but the old 35 mm sensor will not. Therefore, by itself, a “full frame” cannot be considered as an unequivocal advantage. This is a tool for solving specific problems - ask yourself whether you need to print A2 with journal quality? Do you need ISO values ​​from 12800 and higher? If yes, then "full frame" - you absolutely need. In all other cases, you can do with a smaller matrix. However, the camera is not only a sensor. This is the carcass itself with all its features. And the park optics. That's what marketers forget to mention, “promoting full frames” - you can't get a handful of good “full-frame” lenses into your pockets.
One of the most popular mirrorless company Olympus OM-D E-M10
And its improved, refined and more expensive version of the E-M10 II
A number of experts come to the conclusion that together with the evolution of cameras, the reduction in the size of sensors will continue, as was the case with the large format, which had long since lost its significance. It will be the same with “full frame” cameras, which will gradually lose popularity among the mass consumer. On the other hand, when they start providing quality 50 megapixels (and this will undoubtedly happen in the foreseeable future), they will be able to compete with the average format, like studio cameras or billboard cameras. Therefore, it is not surprising that the mirrorless manufacturers have relied on APS-C and Micro 4/3, since this is a bet on more compact optics and smaller dimensions of the cameras themselves. Someday the cherished 50 megapixels are reached and they are.
Modern mirrorless cameras demonstrate excellent vitality and ability to work at -40 (in the photo Murmansk)
I understand perfectly well that the facts that I have outlined above are unlikely to find a response in the hearts of users of the full frame, confident that a decrease in the sensor is always a downgrade. But facts are facts, and you will not get away from them. The "full frame" has and will have advantages, but only when using the most relevant cameras and solving certain tasks. In practice, the FF camera will always be more difficult to handle, larger, and will not give better quality for the same amateur photo, stock photo, reportage photo, photo for magazines. But under it there are cheap wide-angle lenses and high-aperture fixes - both from native manufacturers, and from Sigma and Tamron. Plus, cheap flash and other accessories. This is not to take away.
Well, now I would like to talk a little about the cameras and systems that I was given to try.
Review of existing mirrorless systems
Pentax Q
At the moment, Pentax Q7 is the flagship of the Q line with a sensor size of 1 / 1.7 (if you think this is not enough, then Q10, which is extremely popular in Japan, had 1 / 2.3). I lived with him for about a month. The “toy” system (in size and feel), but the camera took control of the menu and control from full-fledged Pentax DSLRs. Half optics autofocus. At low ISO shoots, surprisingly, not bad. The color rendition and sharpness please. Plus, girls like it. But the price of carcasses, lenses and horse accessories. I suppose these are the most controversial mirrorless, as there are telephones that have comparable quality of the expired RAW.
Samsung NX-M
I had a little experience with the camera Samsung NX Mini (sensor 1 "), which is now actively promoted by bloggers on YouTube. In general, this is what it is - a camera for selfie, a camera for point'n'shoot. Why does she need only replaceable optics - it is not clear, because other manufacturers have already presented absolutely wonderful digital cameras with built-in aperture zoom lenses - Sony RX10 II, for example (although it is healthy). But not the point. I didn’t like the fact that in order to install a Samsung NX lens on the NX Mini, you also need to buy an adapter. Could do without it. But on the software, the camera is somewhat reminiscent of a phone on some Tizen - software for social networks is immediately sewn here, so you don’t need to drop pictures on your phone or tablet to publish them in an instagram.
Samsung NX
The first acquaintance with the Samsung NX1 and NX500
The senior line of Samsung cameras (APS-C) has managed to develop quite well since 2010 and is notable for one of the best quality cheap lenses. Yes, exactly, Samsung has the best regular zoom (18-55) among all mirrorless ones. And in terms of sharpness and image quality. Darkish only. The carcasses themselves are extremely interesting. I have not tried NX1 yet, but I will definitely take it to the test. But I had a NX30. It feels like a mirrorless and more compact twin brother EOS 700D, even the small screen also conveniently leans back. Plus a retractable viewfinder (not the nicest, but decent). But, specifically, the NX30 sensor is either old, or just strange. Noise at even not too high ISO disgusting. Autofocus is not very accurate and not fast. Plus, the same "telephone" software, which is not at all as relevant as on the little NX Mini. At least in the firmware of six months ago, even the manual focus area could not be moved anywhere from the center, and the approach to controlling the device was clearly interpreted by anything other than the laws of ergonomics. In general, the impressions remained controversial, but on auto-tuning in bright weather ˗ very much nothing. Only the color rendition is weird, as if the colors are “overcooked”.
Sony E / FE
Sony A7s II vs Panasonic AG-DVX200
I really like a lot of what Sony does. Xperia phones. PlayStation Consoles. Bravia TVs. And much more. And, as it should be for any sonboi, NEX-5 (APS-C) became my first mirrorless. It is difficult to convey in words how cool she was in 2010, because, with modest dimensions, it was quite possible to get a real high-quality photo, as from a DSLR. But, 4 years have passed, in 2014 I take the A6000 in my hands, and what do I see? Yes, the same NEX-5. Let the software be there fresher, the sensor is newer, but this, in my opinion, is no longer enough for a modern mirrorless camera. Sony has added phase sensors to the camera, but if they work objectively with Fujifilm, the A6000 focuses in the dark just as uncertainly as the NEX-5. A7 this also applies, even more. Optics, among all mirrorless, Sony, perhaps, the worst.Both E and FE have a pair of lenses (Sony 35mm f / 1.8 and Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T * 35mm f / 2.8 ZA, as well as Sony 50mm f / 1.8 OSS and Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T * 55mm f / 1.8 ZA) - here they are not bad. And everything else produces an ugly picture with a clear soap in the corners and significant distortions. Therefore, photographers who use the same A7 usually use either an Minoltov glass adapter (with a translucent mirror, according to reviews, it works fine), or use manual lenses from Helios 77M to Olympus OM and Voigtlaender. It is clear for landscapes and those tasks where autofocus is not needed. I also had A7, one of the first in Russia. The modern low-noise “full frame” sensor with a wide dynamic range has made it the perfect backdrop for manual optics. Especially in the 12-megapixel version of the A7S (by the way, she writes 4K). But, back to thatwhere I started a little higher: it is necessary to proceed from the task. And, if there is a task in which the work of autofocus is important, I would not recommend A7 to be acquired. Also, the characteristic "soft" color is focused on Asians, the Japanese like it. But to me, not so much. That's why I always drove all the photos from Sony through Lightroom. By the way, on no less than Japanese Fujifim or Olympus, I don’t have to do it, which I consider to be a blessing (“soft colors” can be set there in settings, in fuji through film modeling, in oli through filters). But at Sony everything is quite good in terms of video - here, autofocus is not particularly needed, and optics can be wound from the same Samyang.Also, the characteristic "soft" color is focused on Asians, the Japanese like it. But to me, not so much. That's why I always drove all the photos from Sony through Lightroom. By the way, on no less than Japanese Fujifim or Olympus, I don’t have to do it, which I consider to be a blessing (“soft colors” can be set there in settings, in fuji through film modeling, in oli through filters). But at Sony everything is quite good in terms of video - here, autofocus is not particularly needed, and optics can be wound from the same Samyang.Also, the characteristic "soft" color is focused on Asians, the Japanese like it. But to me, not so much. That's why I always drove all the photos from Sony through Lightroom. By the way, on no less than Japanese Fujifim or Olympus, I don’t have to do it, which I consider to be a blessing (“soft colors” can be set there in settings, in fuji through film modeling, in oli through filters). But at Sony everything is quite good in terms of video - here, autofocus is not particularly needed, and optics can be wound from the same Samyang.But at Sony everything is quite good in terms of video - here, autofocus is not particularly needed, and optics can be wound from the same Samyang.But at Sony everything is quite good in terms of video - here, autofocus is not particularly needed, and optics can be wound from the same Samyang.
Fujifilm X
Fujifilm X-T10
One of the youngest mirrorless systems, and, at the same time, already one of the most mature. Fujifilm immediately relied on high-quality optics, recognizable branded color and retro design. And, in my opinion, not lost. Firstly, they initially introduced an optical viewfinder - in 2012, the quality of the EVI was not up to par, so it was returned only when they realized that they would gain something. In the current flagship X-T1, the electronic viewfinder is simply huge and very cool. Secondly, Fuji released a native adapter for Leica M optics, so that the camera could be taken by leykovody, as the main or additional backdrop for your favorite glasses. Third, they did not use the standard Bayer sensor, but developed their own X-Trans. The idea is this - there is no noise on the film, there is grain, which can be very pleasant to the eye.And in the figure at high ISO, there can be disgusting color noise. To remove it, Fuji decided to arrange the color cells more chaotically, so that in each row and column there are cells of all colors. As a conclusion, color noise is completely eliminated on Fuji cameras.
X-Trans
Whether it helped them, or if the tricky switchable noise switch is always turned on in the camera, the story is silent. But, the fact remains that among all the APC-C mirrorless, the Fujifilm X-T1 is now objectively the most quiet. On optics, there are very interesting lenses - personally, I love 35 f / 1.4 most of all. It is not as sharp as 56 f / 1.2, but light, affordable and very compact. There are several telephones - I use the cheapest 50-230 f / 4.5-6.7. I photographed landscapes first at 18-55 f / 2.8-4, and then at 10-22 f / 4. It turns out very interesting. The quality of the JPG camera output is also almost standard. On the other hand, Fuji too, in my opinion, hit retro. X-T1 allows you to set all the settings, not including the camera - and shutter speed, and ISO, and aperture. But, during the real reporting shooting, the speed of changing the settings is important,and here either trust the automatics, or feverishly clamp the bollards and twist the rings, because the exact exposure is carried out by two rings - one at the top (sets the range) and one at the front (sets the shutter speed within the range). Plus, the top rings when switching often touch the bottom. Why all this - is unclear. But everything is authentic. Well, the camera does not give RAW with ISO from 12800 or higher yet (we are waiting for new firmware). Yes, I agree, this is nagging. Because the pros still outweigh. The objective minus of the same X-T1 is the quality of the video output and the scarcity of its settings. In the firmware updates they are working on this, but for the time being the camera is not suitable for professional video shooting.because the exact exposure of the exposure is carried out by two rings - one from the top (sets the range) and one in front (sets the shutter speed within the range). Plus, the top rings when switching often touch the bottom. Why all this - is unclear. But everything is authentic. Well, the camera does not give RAW with ISO from 12800 or higher yet (we are waiting for new firmware). Yes, I agree, this is nagging. Because the pros still outweigh. The objective minus of the same X-T1 is the quality of the video output and the scarcity of its settings. In the firmware updates they are working on this, but for the time being the camera is not suitable for professional video shooting.because the exact exposure of the exposure is carried out by two rings - one from the top (sets the range) and one in front (sets the shutter speed within the range). Plus, the top rings when switching often touch the bottom. Why all this - is unclear. But everything is authentic. Well, the camera does not give RAW with ISO from 12800 or higher yet (we are waiting for new firmware). Yes, I agree, this is nagging. Because the pros still outweigh. The objective minus of the same X-T1 is the quality of the video output and the scarcity of its settings. In the firmware updates they are working on this, but for the time being the camera is not suitable for professional video shooting.And the camera does not give RAW with ISO from 12800 or higher (we are waiting for new firmware). Yes, I agree, this is nagging. Because the pros still outweigh. The objective minus of the same X-T1 is the quality of the video output and the scarcity of its settings. In the firmware updates they are working on this, but for the time being the camera is not suitable for professional video shooting.And the camera does not give RAW with ISO from 12800 or higher (we are waiting for new firmware). Yes, I agree, this is nagging. Because the pros still outweigh. The objective minus of the same X-T1 is the quality of the video output and the scarcity of its settings. In the firmware updates they are working on this, but for the time being the camera is not suitable for professional video shooting.
Fujifilm's first big success is the X-T1 camera.
By the way, this year a pair of high-aperture zooms with a constant f / 2.8 comes out for Fuji. I will definitely test it. In general, I like the Fuji system. I like the fact that she actually does not make mistakes with the definition of white balance (the only one of all the cameras I have tried). I use X-T1 as a camera for every day, and I can recommend it for purchase.
Micro 4/3
Not a flagship, but a very interesting Olympus camera - E-M5 Mk. II
Perhaps the most mature and balanced mirrorless system. Micro Locomotive 4/3, the company Olympus, invests a lot of strength in the development of optics and sensors. Contrary to popular belief, the matrix, produced at the factories of Sony and Panasonic, is developed by Olympus itself, just as the iPhone, produced at the factories of Foxconn, is developed by Apple. In the future, the Olympus matrix can be licensed by Panasonic or Kodak, as was the case with the E-M1 and GH4, which uses the matrix from the E-M1. Plus, Olympus constantly collaborates with all sorts of Sigma'mi (which can be understood by suspicious patents) in order to regularly warm up users of the system with various lenses. Of the completely uninteresting glasses - only the staff like 14-42. It would be better if the cameras were completed with the cheapest fixes. But such brilliant lenses as 75 f / 1.8 and 12-40 f / 2.8 do not have analogues on other mirrorless systems (and mirrors, too, if on the purity). Plus, it is very important for Olympus to be at least one step ahead of the manufacturers of APS-C cameras in order to slightly outperform them in terms of noise at high ISOs. Here, the same Olympus OM-D E-M10 rips apart all the current APS-C mirrorless with a Bayer sensor. I lived for a long time with the E-M1 and E-M10 - I really liked both cameras. From the minuses - the menu, which really needs to be memorized by the manual (this is in 2014 then the year!). With complex light, you may need to set the color temperature in kelvins (good, this feature is not blocked, as on many mirrors). As for Panasonic cameras, they are objectively the best when it comes to video - the GH4 produces an amazing picture in 4K, without moire or any problems. But,Most Panasonic cameras use lens stabilization, not on a matrix like the Olympus. It works a little worse, plus you have to use only the native stabilized Panasonic optics - on the Olympus even a picture from Helios gets stabilization. But, you can take the same Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Kit, there is a stabilizer in it (but, no, 4K). Kodak is still new to the Micro 4/3 system, but if you remember how it all began in 1991, I somehow have no doubt that they will succeed. So far, they have released only one Kodak Pixpro S-1 camera (supplied with a pair of lenses, there is a matrix stabilization) - we will be testing.plus you have to use only the native stabilized Panasonic optics - on the Olympus even a picture from Helios gets stabilized. But, you can take the same Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Kit, there is a stabilizer in it (but, no, 4K). Kodak is still new to the Micro 4/3 system, but if you remember how it all began in 1991, I somehow have no doubt that they will succeed. So far, they have released only one Kodak Pixpro S-1 camera (supplied with a pair of lenses, there is a matrix stabilization) - we will be testing.plus you have to use only the native stabilized Panasonic optics - on the Olympus even a picture from Helios gets stabilized. But, you can take the same Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Kit, there is a stabilizer in it (but, no, 4K). Kodak is still new to the Micro 4/3 system, but if you remember how it all began in 1991, I somehow have no doubt that they will succeed. So far, they have released only one Kodak Pixpro S-1 camera (supplied with a pair of lenses, there is a matrix stabilization) - we will be testing.So far, they have released only one Kodak Pixpro S-1 camera (supplied with a pair of lenses, there is a matrix stabilization) - we will be testing.So far, they have released only one Kodak Pixpro S-1 camera (supplied with a pair of lenses, there is a matrix stabilization) - we will be testing.
Panasonic Lumix GX8
And now a couple of words about systems that I personally have not tried.
Nikon 1, Canon EOS M and Leica T
According to reviews of friends - Nikon 1 is an interesting system, focused on fans. One of the main features is a high rate of fire. There are a couple of high-aperture lenses: Nikon 32mm f / 1.2 and Nikon 18.5mm f / 1.8 Nikkor 1. As for the Canon EOS M, this camera was with my colleague on CHIP and Pro Hi-Tech Sergey Safonov. With another CHIP editor, Sergei Suslov, they prepared a camera review for CHIP TV (it is just looking for a search for anyone interested). Since then, in my opinion, nothing has changed, despite the release of the second version of EOS M2. The carcass itself was not very successful. On the market, only four lenses are available (zoom, teleseum, shirikosum and fix Canon EF-M 22mm f / 2 STM). The system is almost dead, but many acquire EOS-M in order to use Canon optics through an adapter.
But I had a Leica T, but not for long, so I did not have time to draw up a full-fledged opinion about it - I didn’t like the management and standard zoom lens, but the design of the camera immediately gathers interested views. In my opinion, the thing is purely image.
And finally, our comparison of the top 2014 mirrorless cropped mirrorless
Development process
That the future for a digital photo became finally clear in 2003. And the success of the first inexpensive Canon 300D DSLR, with a price tag of less than $ 1,000, is proof of that. Up until 2008, the SLRs reigned almost completely on the market, but serious cameras with interchangeable optics, but without a mirror, lagged behind the appearance of the 300D for just one year.
')
Kodak DCS 100 with external hard disk unit
Paradoxically, the pioneer here was the Epson company with the R-D1 rangefinder, compatible with the Leica M bayonet. In 2006, Leica itself introduced the M8 rangefinder, under the same bayonet, and the M9 in 2009. But neither the one nor the other, nor the third camera did not have autofocus (and the price was biting), so they did not find much mass. But our Prime Minister likes it.
Epson R-D1 - a pioneer in the world of mirrorless
Perhaps it is the ability to autofocus, coupled with a large sensor, and became the key to the success of DSLRs. While most digital cameras focus solely on contrast sensors, the design features of DSLRs allowed them to use more accurate and fast phase focusing, instead of or in addition to contrast.
Mirrorless in the modern sense of the term appeared in 2008, when Olympus and Panasonic introduced the Micro 4/3 system (now their cameras or lenses for the Micro 4/3 system were also presented by Kodak, Cosina / Voigtländer, Carl Zeiss AG, Jos. Schneider Optische Werke GmbH, Komamura Corporation, Sigma Corporation, Tamron, Astrodesign, Yasuhara, Lensbaby, Samyang, Tokina and Blackmagic Design; the optics from these manufacturers are completely interchangeable). In 2010, Sony came up with the E system and Samsung with the NX, in 2011 Nikon introduced the 1-inch Nikon 1, and the Pentax even more compact system Q. Canon and Fujifilm introduced the EOS M and Fujifilm X systems, respectively, in 2012. In 2013, Sony introduced the “full frame” FE system, partially compatible with the Crop E. And in 2014, Samsung expanded its system with the one-inch NX Mini. In April of the same year, Leica introduced its Leica T APS-C mirrorless mirror (Typ 701) for the new bayonet of the same name.
Kodak unveiled its first Micro 4/3 S1 camera in 2013
If DSLRs are so good, why did almost all the major photo manufacturers present their mirrorless models, and many companies even turned down the production of DSLRs? Now we will understand. First, it's about size and reliability. It is not necessary to allocate space for a mirror in a mirrorless, and you can completely dispense with moving parts - electronic gates are almost as good as mechanical ones now. Therefore, mirrorless cameras themselves are compact - my favorite example is the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 and Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 cameras with a weight of 173 and 180 grams (without batteries). And this is with the full Micro 4/3 bayonet and full compatibility with the entire fleet of the corresponding optics!
Autofocus, viewfinder, optics
Of course, the story with autofocus is still true - the top SLRs really focus faster and more precisely in the twilight, but every year this difference melts before our eyes. And if there is enough light, then some mirrorless cameras focus even faster than DSLRs, while maintaining high accuracy. For example, the Olympus OM-D E-M10 with the right lens is very fast. Of all the cameras I have tested, the best results in focusing in the dark are demonstrated by the flagship Fujifilm X-T1 - it is not inferior to amateur DSLRs thanks to the presence of matching contrast and phase sensors. I filmed night concerts with this camera, the result was impressive. I’ll just say that I didn’t try E-M10 personally in the club shooting, but knowledgeable people claim that it performs no worse, although it relies solely on contrast sensors. But Sony cameras, like Fujifilm, have phase sensors, but this does not allow the A7 and A6000 cameras to achieve equally good results. Consequently, on these cameras it is very difficult to photograph children and animals at home, with normal indoor lighting.
The device is a conventional DSLR
The electronic viewfinder of the flaw gradually became a virtue. The first electronic viewfinders were slow and displayed a delayed image, the color quality and resolution were disgusting, and the field of view was cropped. Now there are two cameras with simply huge viewfinders, this is the Olympus E-M1 or Fujifilm X-T1. In this case, the problem with the lag is completely eliminated. And what you see “through the eye” of the camera fully corresponds to the photo you receive if you now release the shutter. I have had it so many times that I rebuilt my old DSLR under one light, it changed, and I did not have time to figure out that it was time to change the exposure settings, looking into the mirror viewfinder. Mirrorless users are insured against this.
In addition to this, optics for mirrorless are more compact, and thanks to a short working segment, they are compatible with all decent optics from DSLRs via adapters.
Roughly speaking, mirrorless is smaller, faster and easier to handle. At the same time they provide quality photos at the level of DSLRs. Do they provide? And why, in fact, no. The sensors, which are in mirrorless, in fact, are no different from the sensors in the SLR, the exception is unique design, such as sensors Micro 4/3 and Fujifilm. And what kind of processor and software is there, it depends on the specific manufacturer. The main thing is not to judge the quality by trying full-time optics. Sony should try with SEL35F18, SEL-50F18 or SEL-55F18Z lenses, Olympus, Panasonic and Kodak with Olympus ED 12-40mm f / 2.8 Pro M.Zuiko Digital or Olympus ED 75mm f / 1.8, Fujfilm - with 35 or Fujifilm XF 56mm f / 1.2 R and Fujifilm XF 16-55, and so on. Otherwise, the capabilities of the camera will not open.
Sony a7 with a Minolta lens mounted through an adapter with a translucent mirror
Smaller dimensions, high quality
Miniaturization is a cool thing. Previously, a 50 MB hard drive was as large as a car engine, but now the same amount of data is placed on a MicroSD card, the size of which is no larger than a nail. Here you can remember mobile phones, weapons and all computer equipment, in general. At the same time, I often see in the comments to our videos and on forums opinions in the spirit: “here is fudzhik taxis, but why they have APS-C, then, if I stuck a full frame, I would buy” or “cool Olympus , but, damn, this is double-cropped, would be at least with APS-C, I would take ten at once, and so on ... I will give an example from personal experience. I was one of the first users of the full-frame RX1R camera, I also had a Sony A7, but I took my best photos on cameras with a 1.5 and 2 crop factor. And we shoot all the videos for the Pro Hi-Tech channel, exactly same, on the crop 1.6. When I realized this, I had a full full frame. 35 mm sensors or the so-called “full frame” is a format that was considered “small” in the film era, as it was smaller than “medium” (cameras of “medium format” - Hasselblad, Phase One, Mamiya, etc.) , if you read this far, for sure, you heard about them). And at times less than the "big format". But, marketers from companies such as Canon and Nikon have firmly decided to push the idea that the "full frame" is cool and everything else is not. And it still feeds them well.
Zack Arias lucidly talks about cropping and full frames (Russian subtitles)
Let us objectively understand what gives the "full fayem" sensor at the moment. First, it allows you to provide an effective 36 megapixels. This is A2 format with journal quality - 300 dpi. If you print A2 every day, then this is what you need. And for billboards it will not be enough - you need at least 50 megapixels, like in “medium format” cameras. On the other hand, if you actually print your photos, maximum, in a journal, or even just keep a family archive, then your 36-megapixel photo archive will very quickly begin to occupy terabytes. But, the difference even on 4K-screen with the same 16 megapixels you will not see. Because (trend of the season!) 4K is 8 megapixels. Yes, just like that, a “mega-sharp” movie in 4K is “only” 8 megapixels. A 16 megapixel is more than enough to print in an expensive glossy magazine, I can say this with confidence in my experience in the magazines CHIP, Playboy, Avtomir, Game Navigator and DJ Mag. The exception is a photo on the cover or advertising pages that you may want to make. Here, the more the better. And, again, the 50-megapixel "medium" format is being controlled.
The ratio of the sizes between the large format sensor (right), medium (left) and all small formats (fit inside), including the "full frame"
The second advantage of the 35 mm sensors over smaller sensors is the ability to work at high ISO values, but this is, again, not a professional approach. The higher the ISO value set on your camera, the lower the detail level, and the presence or absence of noise is already the tenth matter. Lose details - lose quality. Photographers always think first about the light, and only then get down to business. In the course are flashes, lamps, tripods - anything, just not to raise the ISO. And this is one of the reasons why medium format cameras, until recently, were generally limited to a maximum ISO 800 value. The main hitch was, of course, in the features of a CCD.
Test image to assess the noise level on the Canon EOS 5D Mk. II ( top ) and Olympus OM-D E-M10 ( low y) - ISO 6400
Well, let's take a sober assessment of the difference in the dimensions of the matrix - APS-C or even Micro 4/3 is not as much less than 35 mm as 35 mm is less than a large format. Therefore, modern Micro 4/3 sensors, in terms of noise at high ISO, are only a few percent lagging behind the “full frame” sensors of previous years - in particular, the results of the Olympus OM-D E-M10 are about three percent lagging behind the results of the Canon EOS 5D Mk. II, and the dynamic range of the E-M10 is even higher (12.3 versus 11.9 for Canon).
Thirdly, the “full frame” allows you to get a full picture on the optics made for 35-sensors. In the same way as APS-C allows you to get a full picture on the optics made under the APS-C. A "mikra" under the "mikru". At the same time, medium format optics on the "full frame" will give a cropped image that does not reveal all the charms of the medium format. And, of course, large format optics ... ooh, even a “medium format” camera is not talking about any “full-fledged” picture. But, for fans of old Soviet lenses, made just under 35 mm format, this can be important.
Our old video about manual lenses and Soviet optics
Fourth, the depth of the sharply depicted space on the same lens on the "full frame" will be less, therefore, you can better blur the background. However, this advantage is very controversial, since high-aperture optics (up to f / 0.95) has long been sold for a reasonable amount of money, including Crop. And too small a depth of field is far from always desirable - in landscape photography, for example, on the contrary, the diaphragm has to be clamped.
Lens Voigtlander Nokton 17.5mm f / 0.95 Lens for M4 / 3
As a conclusion, the latest 35 mm sensor of the latest generation will provide a number of advantages over the modern Micro 4/3 matrix, but the old 35 mm sensor will not. Therefore, by itself, a “full frame” cannot be considered as an unequivocal advantage. This is a tool for solving specific problems - ask yourself whether you need to print A2 with journal quality? Do you need ISO values ​​from 12800 and higher? If yes, then "full frame" - you absolutely need. In all other cases, you can do with a smaller matrix. However, the camera is not only a sensor. This is the carcass itself with all its features. And the park optics. That's what marketers forget to mention, “promoting full frames” - you can't get a handful of good “full-frame” lenses into your pockets.
One of the most popular mirrorless company Olympus OM-D E-M10
And its improved, refined and more expensive version of the E-M10 II
A number of experts come to the conclusion that together with the evolution of cameras, the reduction in the size of sensors will continue, as was the case with the large format, which had long since lost its significance. It will be the same with “full frame” cameras, which will gradually lose popularity among the mass consumer. On the other hand, when they start providing quality 50 megapixels (and this will undoubtedly happen in the foreseeable future), they will be able to compete with the average format, like studio cameras or billboard cameras. Therefore, it is not surprising that the mirrorless manufacturers have relied on APS-C and Micro 4/3, since this is a bet on more compact optics and smaller dimensions of the cameras themselves. Someday the cherished 50 megapixels are reached and they are.
Modern mirrorless cameras demonstrate excellent vitality and ability to work at -40 (in the photo Murmansk)
I understand perfectly well that the facts that I have outlined above are unlikely to find a response in the hearts of users of the full frame, confident that a decrease in the sensor is always a downgrade. But facts are facts, and you will not get away from them. The "full frame" has and will have advantages, but only when using the most relevant cameras and solving certain tasks. In practice, the FF camera will always be more difficult to handle, larger, and will not give better quality for the same amateur photo, stock photo, reportage photo, photo for magazines. But under it there are cheap wide-angle lenses and high-aperture fixes - both from native manufacturers, and from Sigma and Tamron. Plus, cheap flash and other accessories. This is not to take away.
Well, now I would like to talk a little about the cameras and systems that I was given to try.
Review of existing mirrorless systems
Pentax Q
At the moment, Pentax Q7 is the flagship of the Q line with a sensor size of 1 / 1.7 (if you think this is not enough, then Q10, which is extremely popular in Japan, had 1 / 2.3). I lived with him for about a month. The “toy” system (in size and feel), but the camera took control of the menu and control from full-fledged Pentax DSLRs. Half optics autofocus. At low ISO shoots, surprisingly, not bad. The color rendition and sharpness please. Plus, girls like it. But the price of carcasses, lenses and horse accessories. I suppose these are the most controversial mirrorless, as there are telephones that have comparable quality of the expired RAW.
Samsung NX-M
I had a little experience with the camera Samsung NX Mini (sensor 1 "), which is now actively promoted by bloggers on YouTube. In general, this is what it is - a camera for selfie, a camera for point'n'shoot. Why does she need only replaceable optics - it is not clear, because other manufacturers have already presented absolutely wonderful digital cameras with built-in aperture zoom lenses - Sony RX10 II, for example (although it is healthy). But not the point. I didn’t like the fact that in order to install a Samsung NX lens on the NX Mini, you also need to buy an adapter. Could do without it. But on the software, the camera is somewhat reminiscent of a phone on some Tizen - software for social networks is immediately sewn here, so you don’t need to drop pictures on your phone or tablet to publish them in an instagram.
Samsung NX
The first acquaintance with the Samsung NX1 and NX500
The senior line of Samsung cameras (APS-C) has managed to develop quite well since 2010 and is notable for one of the best quality cheap lenses. Yes, exactly, Samsung has the best regular zoom (18-55) among all mirrorless ones. And in terms of sharpness and image quality. Darkish only. The carcasses themselves are extremely interesting. I have not tried NX1 yet, but I will definitely take it to the test. But I had a NX30. It feels like a mirrorless and more compact twin brother EOS 700D, even the small screen also conveniently leans back. Plus a retractable viewfinder (not the nicest, but decent). But, specifically, the NX30 sensor is either old, or just strange. Noise at even not too high ISO disgusting. Autofocus is not very accurate and not fast. Plus, the same "telephone" software, which is not at all as relevant as on the little NX Mini. At least in the firmware of six months ago, even the manual focus area could not be moved anywhere from the center, and the approach to controlling the device was clearly interpreted by anything other than the laws of ergonomics. In general, the impressions remained controversial, but on auto-tuning in bright weather ˗ very much nothing. Only the color rendition is weird, as if the colors are “overcooked”.
Sony E / FE
Sony A7s II vs Panasonic AG-DVX200
I really like a lot of what Sony does. Xperia phones. PlayStation Consoles. Bravia TVs. And much more. And, as it should be for any sonboi, NEX-5 (APS-C) became my first mirrorless. It is difficult to convey in words how cool she was in 2010, because, with modest dimensions, it was quite possible to get a real high-quality photo, as from a DSLR. But, 4 years have passed, in 2014 I take the A6000 in my hands, and what do I see? Yes, the same NEX-5. Let the software be there fresher, the sensor is newer, but this, in my opinion, is no longer enough for a modern mirrorless camera. Sony has added phase sensors to the camera, but if they work objectively with Fujifilm, the A6000 focuses in the dark just as uncertainly as the NEX-5. A7 this also applies, even more. Optics, among all mirrorless, Sony, perhaps, the worst.Both E and FE have a pair of lenses (Sony 35mm f / 1.8 and Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T * 35mm f / 2.8 ZA, as well as Sony 50mm f / 1.8 OSS and Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T * 55mm f / 1.8 ZA) - here they are not bad. And everything else produces an ugly picture with a clear soap in the corners and significant distortions. Therefore, photographers who use the same A7 usually use either an Minoltov glass adapter (with a translucent mirror, according to reviews, it works fine), or use manual lenses from Helios 77M to Olympus OM and Voigtlaender. It is clear for landscapes and those tasks where autofocus is not needed. I also had A7, one of the first in Russia. The modern low-noise “full frame” sensor with a wide dynamic range has made it the perfect backdrop for manual optics. Especially in the 12-megapixel version of the A7S (by the way, she writes 4K). But, back to thatwhere I started a little higher: it is necessary to proceed from the task. And, if there is a task in which the work of autofocus is important, I would not recommend A7 to be acquired. Also, the characteristic "soft" color is focused on Asians, the Japanese like it. But to me, not so much. That's why I always drove all the photos from Sony through Lightroom. By the way, on no less than Japanese Fujifim or Olympus, I don’t have to do it, which I consider to be a blessing (“soft colors” can be set there in settings, in fuji through film modeling, in oli through filters). But at Sony everything is quite good in terms of video - here, autofocus is not particularly needed, and optics can be wound from the same Samyang.Also, the characteristic "soft" color is focused on Asians, the Japanese like it. But to me, not so much. That's why I always drove all the photos from Sony through Lightroom. By the way, on no less than Japanese Fujifim or Olympus, I don’t have to do it, which I consider to be a blessing (“soft colors” can be set there in settings, in fuji through film modeling, in oli through filters). But at Sony everything is quite good in terms of video - here, autofocus is not particularly needed, and optics can be wound from the same Samyang.Also, the characteristic "soft" color is focused on Asians, the Japanese like it. But to me, not so much. That's why I always drove all the photos from Sony through Lightroom. By the way, on no less than Japanese Fujifim or Olympus, I don’t have to do it, which I consider to be a blessing (“soft colors” can be set there in settings, in fuji through film modeling, in oli through filters). But at Sony everything is quite good in terms of video - here, autofocus is not particularly needed, and optics can be wound from the same Samyang.But at Sony everything is quite good in terms of video - here, autofocus is not particularly needed, and optics can be wound from the same Samyang.But at Sony everything is quite good in terms of video - here, autofocus is not particularly needed, and optics can be wound from the same Samyang.
Fujifilm X
Fujifilm X-T10
One of the youngest mirrorless systems, and, at the same time, already one of the most mature. Fujifilm immediately relied on high-quality optics, recognizable branded color and retro design. And, in my opinion, not lost. Firstly, they initially introduced an optical viewfinder - in 2012, the quality of the EVI was not up to par, so it was returned only when they realized that they would gain something. In the current flagship X-T1, the electronic viewfinder is simply huge and very cool. Secondly, Fuji released a native adapter for Leica M optics, so that the camera could be taken by leykovody, as the main or additional backdrop for your favorite glasses. Third, they did not use the standard Bayer sensor, but developed their own X-Trans. The idea is this - there is no noise on the film, there is grain, which can be very pleasant to the eye.And in the figure at high ISO, there can be disgusting color noise. To remove it, Fuji decided to arrange the color cells more chaotically, so that in each row and column there are cells of all colors. As a conclusion, color noise is completely eliminated on Fuji cameras.
X-Trans
Whether it helped them, or if the tricky switchable noise switch is always turned on in the camera, the story is silent. But, the fact remains that among all the APC-C mirrorless, the Fujifilm X-T1 is now objectively the most quiet. On optics, there are very interesting lenses - personally, I love 35 f / 1.4 most of all. It is not as sharp as 56 f / 1.2, but light, affordable and very compact. There are several telephones - I use the cheapest 50-230 f / 4.5-6.7. I photographed landscapes first at 18-55 f / 2.8-4, and then at 10-22 f / 4. It turns out very interesting. The quality of the JPG camera output is also almost standard. On the other hand, Fuji too, in my opinion, hit retro. X-T1 allows you to set all the settings, not including the camera - and shutter speed, and ISO, and aperture. But, during the real reporting shooting, the speed of changing the settings is important,and here either trust the automatics, or feverishly clamp the bollards and twist the rings, because the exact exposure is carried out by two rings - one at the top (sets the range) and one at the front (sets the shutter speed within the range). Plus, the top rings when switching often touch the bottom. Why all this - is unclear. But everything is authentic. Well, the camera does not give RAW with ISO from 12800 or higher yet (we are waiting for new firmware). Yes, I agree, this is nagging. Because the pros still outweigh. The objective minus of the same X-T1 is the quality of the video output and the scarcity of its settings. In the firmware updates they are working on this, but for the time being the camera is not suitable for professional video shooting.because the exact exposure of the exposure is carried out by two rings - one from the top (sets the range) and one in front (sets the shutter speed within the range). Plus, the top rings when switching often touch the bottom. Why all this - is unclear. But everything is authentic. Well, the camera does not give RAW with ISO from 12800 or higher yet (we are waiting for new firmware). Yes, I agree, this is nagging. Because the pros still outweigh. The objective minus of the same X-T1 is the quality of the video output and the scarcity of its settings. In the firmware updates they are working on this, but for the time being the camera is not suitable for professional video shooting.because the exact exposure of the exposure is carried out by two rings - one from the top (sets the range) and one in front (sets the shutter speed within the range). Plus, the top rings when switching often touch the bottom. Why all this - is unclear. But everything is authentic. Well, the camera does not give RAW with ISO from 12800 or higher yet (we are waiting for new firmware). Yes, I agree, this is nagging. Because the pros still outweigh. The objective minus of the same X-T1 is the quality of the video output and the scarcity of its settings. In the firmware updates they are working on this, but for the time being the camera is not suitable for professional video shooting.And the camera does not give RAW with ISO from 12800 or higher (we are waiting for new firmware). Yes, I agree, this is nagging. Because the pros still outweigh. The objective minus of the same X-T1 is the quality of the video output and the scarcity of its settings. In the firmware updates they are working on this, but for the time being the camera is not suitable for professional video shooting.And the camera does not give RAW with ISO from 12800 or higher (we are waiting for new firmware). Yes, I agree, this is nagging. Because the pros still outweigh. The objective minus of the same X-T1 is the quality of the video output and the scarcity of its settings. In the firmware updates they are working on this, but for the time being the camera is not suitable for professional video shooting.
Fujifilm's first big success is the X-T1 camera.
By the way, this year a pair of high-aperture zooms with a constant f / 2.8 comes out for Fuji. I will definitely test it. In general, I like the Fuji system. I like the fact that she actually does not make mistakes with the definition of white balance (the only one of all the cameras I have tried). I use X-T1 as a camera for every day, and I can recommend it for purchase.
Micro 4/3
Not a flagship, but a very interesting Olympus camera - E-M5 Mk. II
Perhaps the most mature and balanced mirrorless system. Micro Locomotive 4/3, the company Olympus, invests a lot of strength in the development of optics and sensors. Contrary to popular belief, the matrix, produced at the factories of Sony and Panasonic, is developed by Olympus itself, just as the iPhone, produced at the factories of Foxconn, is developed by Apple. In the future, the Olympus matrix can be licensed by Panasonic or Kodak, as was the case with the E-M1 and GH4, which uses the matrix from the E-M1. Plus, Olympus constantly collaborates with all sorts of Sigma'mi (which can be understood by suspicious patents) in order to regularly warm up users of the system with various lenses. Of the completely uninteresting glasses - only the staff like 14-42. It would be better if the cameras were completed with the cheapest fixes. But such brilliant lenses as 75 f / 1.8 and 12-40 f / 2.8 do not have analogues on other mirrorless systems (and mirrors, too, if on the purity). Plus, it is very important for Olympus to be at least one step ahead of the manufacturers of APS-C cameras in order to slightly outperform them in terms of noise at high ISOs. Here, the same Olympus OM-D E-M10 rips apart all the current APS-C mirrorless with a Bayer sensor. I lived for a long time with the E-M1 and E-M10 - I really liked both cameras. From the minuses - the menu, which really needs to be memorized by the manual (this is in 2014 then the year!). With complex light, you may need to set the color temperature in kelvins (good, this feature is not blocked, as on many mirrors). As for Panasonic cameras, they are objectively the best when it comes to video - the GH4 produces an amazing picture in 4K, without moire or any problems. But,Most Panasonic cameras use lens stabilization, not on a matrix like the Olympus. It works a little worse, plus you have to use only the native stabilized Panasonic optics - on the Olympus even a picture from Helios gets stabilization. But, you can take the same Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Kit, there is a stabilizer in it (but, no, 4K). Kodak is still new to the Micro 4/3 system, but if you remember how it all began in 1991, I somehow have no doubt that they will succeed. So far, they have released only one Kodak Pixpro S-1 camera (supplied with a pair of lenses, there is a matrix stabilization) - we will be testing.plus you have to use only the native stabilized Panasonic optics - on the Olympus even a picture from Helios gets stabilized. But, you can take the same Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Kit, there is a stabilizer in it (but, no, 4K). Kodak is still new to the Micro 4/3 system, but if you remember how it all began in 1991, I somehow have no doubt that they will succeed. So far, they have released only one Kodak Pixpro S-1 camera (supplied with a pair of lenses, there is a matrix stabilization) - we will be testing.plus you have to use only the native stabilized Panasonic optics - on the Olympus even a picture from Helios gets stabilized. But, you can take the same Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Kit, there is a stabilizer in it (but, no, 4K). Kodak is still new to the Micro 4/3 system, but if you remember how it all began in 1991, I somehow have no doubt that they will succeed. So far, they have released only one Kodak Pixpro S-1 camera (supplied with a pair of lenses, there is a matrix stabilization) - we will be testing.So far, they have released only one Kodak Pixpro S-1 camera (supplied with a pair of lenses, there is a matrix stabilization) - we will be testing.So far, they have released only one Kodak Pixpro S-1 camera (supplied with a pair of lenses, there is a matrix stabilization) - we will be testing.
Panasonic Lumix GX8
And now a couple of words about systems that I personally have not tried.
Nikon 1, Canon EOS M and Leica T
According to reviews of friends - Nikon 1 is an interesting system, focused on fans. One of the main features is a high rate of fire. There are a couple of high-aperture lenses: Nikon 32mm f / 1.2 and Nikon 18.5mm f / 1.8 Nikkor 1. As for the Canon EOS M, this camera was with my colleague on CHIP and Pro Hi-Tech Sergey Safonov. With another CHIP editor, Sergei Suslov, they prepared a camera review for CHIP TV (it is just looking for a search for anyone interested). Since then, in my opinion, nothing has changed, despite the release of the second version of EOS M2. The carcass itself was not very successful. On the market, only four lenses are available (zoom, teleseum, shirikosum and fix Canon EF-M 22mm f / 2 STM). The system is almost dead, but many acquire EOS-M in order to use Canon optics through an adapter.
But I had a Leica T, but not for long, so I did not have time to draw up a full-fledged opinion about it - I didn’t like the management and standard zoom lens, but the design of the camera immediately gathers interested views. In my opinion, the thing is purely image.
And finally, our comparison of the top 2014 mirrorless cropped mirrorless
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/362347/
All Articles