Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Gadgets, Computers & Software (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/)

-   -   Mirrorless or EVIL Cameras (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/93694-mirrorless-evil-cameras-150.html)

I sold all my dSLR lenses in 2012 and never looked back. There is no point in switching to mirrorless and still keep to dSLR lenses.

I understood the difference between the 4/3 system and the APS-C system. Its just the difference in the size of the sensor and then the pixel density. Then, how come the smaller sized 4/3 mirrorless cameras are more expensive then larger sized APS-C sensor cameras in the market?

The itch is to use the old FD mount lenses which do not have servos. So they will need a simple adapter which sell for around 3-4 thousand rupees. The Canon T-50 Film SLR body which used the FD mount lenses is having shutter release issues which started 12 years ago. I did not feel like getting it checked or repaired in all these years. So the thought of salvaging some life out of the lenses is what prompted me to explore this option.

Not too worried about the EF mount lenses as they accompany a fully functioning Canon 7D DSLR. I guess their adapters would be more expensive since they need to have pins for the comms.

What is your reason for considering mirrorless?

Small form factor.

Cheap adapters for old lenses which are not being used.

Latest functions like wifi transfer.

Already have a superzoom and a DSLR in the house so something different to shuffle around.

I have a sony mirrorless full frame camera, and one of the best things is to be able to use any lens. My astro work is anyways manual focus, and wide angle work does not require fast AF, so I can use old lenses like Canon 300mm F4/L which I got for around 300$ used.
Same with old Nikkor glass and old FD and Minolta glass. I pretty much sold away quite a bit of the stuff I had, or gave it away when I moved, but it was all Delhi flea market stuff. Lenses for as low as 2000rs
m4/3 has its own advantages through, but cost is not one of them. If you do not mind used cameras, an A6000 used can go for 250$ in stellar mint condition sometimes. And you can always find samples for 270-300$ for the body. Even new is 400$ here.

In India, it is a bit difficult to snag used but a kit can be had for 30,000 - Which is a phenomenal value

For the guys in delima between APS-C and micro 4/3
Let me put an Indian middle class perspective here on the risk of being skinned on the forum.
If you are used to APS-C dont think about micro 4/3 . If you don't have good collection of lens already go for Sony APS-C or else if you are invested in Canon then Canon M50.

My background

I have an APS-C canon and lots of lenses ( 35mm F1.4 , 50mm F1.8, 100 mm macro , 10-20 UWA , 150-500 TF and also old Pentax manual 50 mm 1.4 and Vivitar Series 1 90mm macro which i ise with mount converter)
And also I have Micro 4/3 Olympus with kit 14-45 , 45 mm F1.8 and 20mm F2.8 lens. I purchased Olympus system some 5 years back as inital move to mirrorless. The olympus body I have is EPL - 3 which I don't plan to upgrade and will eventually dump in favour of either Canon M50 or some more compitant APS-C or even better Canon RP ( full frame but cheaper then Canon R)
The only reason I have not done till date is I don't have any urgency so can wait for Canon RP to be available locally.

Reason:
If you are used to framing using APS-C size sensor micro 4/3 feels very odd especially if you tend to use UWA and 35mm F1.4 maximum.
The widest 14mm in kit lens doesn't feel wide and can not match 10-20 mm

I read a lot about the 20mm pancake for micro 4/3 but found it to be compleatly useless actually.

Lot of people will say how your foot is best zoom or why can't you move back few feet however in crowded Indian scenarios this is not always possible.
Last year in Kumbh mela I was in boat and there was no option to move back.


In indian context for average person its not easy to sell off lenses and buy new system. You will get super lowball offers while selling and micro 4/3 lenses and bodies are expensive compared to US.

Only said by people that don’t understand the difference between zoom and moving position closer/further away from whatever it is you are focussing on.

Zoom does not change perspective, walking away/toward the subject does! People think zoom changes perspective, but it does not. Zooming is just “cropping”.

https://petapixel.com/2017/04/20/zoo...-zooming-lens/


Jeroen

Interesting fact brought to light. I never thought of it this way. Thanks.

Of course zooming - or rather, changing the focal length - changes the perspective. This guy explains it very well - https://youtu.be/DGujsKb2e10

Edit: Actually, that petapixel article is confusing. In the example pics shown, he is "zooming out" as well as walking further back.

You made a classic mistake lots of folks do with Olympus. Your widest lens is a kit lens? The difference is huge between kit lens and PRO or specialist lenses in Olympus. Cheap lens don't perform well in m4/3. If you want a good all-rounder lens, there is only one, the 12-40mm PRO F/2.8 lens. That's equal to 24-80mm in fullframe. I have owned 9-18mm f4.0-5.6 earlier, which was a great performer too.

Even coming to the body, the EPL series is a low budget body. The OM-D series is what really performs. I have the 2012 EM5 mk1 and 2015 EM5 mk2. I have no need to upgrade at all.

My current setup:

Olympus OM-D E-M5 (2012)
Olympus M. Zuiko 12-50mm F/3.5-6.3
Olympus M. Zuiko 40-150mm F/4-5.6

Olympus OM-D E-M5 MkII (2015)
Olympus M. Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO
Olympus M. Zuiko 75mm F/1.8
Olympus M. Zuiko 45mm F/1.8
Olympus M. Zuiko 25mm F/1.8
Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye MFT

A good Olympus m4/3 system is not cheap. You need to invest in good lenses, and they last forever. My 12-40mm F/2.8 is 6 years old and performs great. In all the Team-BHP reviews I do, I just need that lens.

No it is not and no the guy does not explain it. What he does explain and demonstrates how lenses with different focal length can give a very different view. E.g. a wide angle allows you to get up real close and catch a lot of stuff in the frame. He is in fact doing exactly what we are discussing, he moves his feet (i.e. recording position) in comparison to the subject, depending on what lens he uses.

But the fundamental fact remains focal length does not change perspective. That is not my opinion, it is just fact, it is how physics work.

Different lenses allow you to position yourself differently in relation to the subject. That, to my earlier point, changes perspective.

You can try this at home if you have two lenses of different focal length. The bigger the difference the better. Shoot an object from the same distance with both lenses, make sure you have sufficient depth of field around the subject. And a subject that shows perspective (e.g. some thing behind one another)


Import both images onto your computer. Take the image from the lens with the shortest focal length, start cropping it till it shows the same as the image as the one with the longer focal lens. Compare both images carefully, and you will notice that they have identical perspective. Try it with different lenses and you will get the same result! No change in perspective when you change the focal length!

Here is one I made earlier: :) (Well I borrowed it from the Internet)



For good measure, here another article/videio from Petapixel:

https://petapixel.com/2018/02/08/zooming-feet-isnt/

If you don’t believe me, do try and google “difference zooming and moving your feet”. Despite hundreds of tutorials out there, it still remains an elusive topic for many photographers. But you can not change the laws of physics by focal length.

Jeroen

Well I never had problem with body per se and never complained about it in the post if you might have noticed. The point I made was about what you get in the frame while composing with same lens so body is a moot point. The differences in body are with reference to ISO , Shutter Speed or IBIS and I never discussed these points at all as I never used EPL for those low light, fast shooting requirements

EPL had a huge advantage over OM-D and that is of compact form factor. OM-D on other hand looks almost like a compact DSLR ( Canon 200D type) so if you have a DSLR body there is no point in going to OM-D

Nice setup and glad that works for you however as I notified I am used to 10-20 on APS-C and 12mm on Micro 4/3 does not come close to 10mm on APS-C So I skipped buying it.
I am sure people using Full frame and fond of shooting at wide angle will have similar views about APS-C.

So the point remains.

BTW : In my view all modern lenses of all brands last forever these days.
Only lens that ever went bust for me in last 12-13 year was Tamron 90mm Marco because AF ribbon was cut and I could get it repaired at Deendayal Camera in Bangalore easily before selling it.

Hmm I didn't think this through. You're right!

As I quoted earlier is the SLR on its way out. It looks like the mobiles are evolving to two or three selectable fixed focus lenses (no zoom) relying on digital zoom to bridge the gaps.

This is indeed true. Perspective (angle of converging lines) changes only with change in relative distance between point of view and subject. With constant distance between camera and subject(s), perspective remains same. You change perspective using different focal length lens by changing distance to subject yet maintaining similar framing of subject.