[Samurai]

Originally Posted by typeOnegative

The winner in terms of numbers will shift back to Canon or Nikon even in this space as long as they see to it that their DSLR lenses can be used on an EVIL body.

Hmm, I too used to believe that. After using the EVIL camera for a month, I seriously doubt it. Using the EVIL camera is so convenient, I have just left my dSLR and lenses alone. My 12-60mm lens itself is bigger than the EVIL camera.

It just doesn't make sense to lug around all the legacy lenses when you have a very compact package that can be taken anywhere.

[typeOnegative]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Hmm, I too used to believe that. After using the EVIL camera for a month, I seriously doubt it. Using the EVIL camera is so convenient, I have just left my dSLR and lenses alone. My 12-60mm lens itself is bigger than the EVIL camera.

It just doesn't make sense to lug around all the legacy lenses when you have a very compact package that can be taken anywhere.

What I was saying Samurai is that the leader in the EVIL space could be Nikon and Canon once again. Not that "It makes sense to lug around the legacy lenses."

Besides there would be people like me who will be that small minority of people who would actually find the MFT / EVIL a pain to hold and compose with. Its a question of preference and while I see a large jump in the number of people who own EVIL cameras, the number of people who own and use DSLRs will not die down overnight.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by typeOnegative

Besides there would be people like me who will be that small minority of people who would actually find the MFT / EVIL a pain to hold and compose with. Its a question of preference and while I see a large jump in the number of people who own EVIL cameras, the number of people who own and use DSLRs will not die down overnight.

Jump into the water, then speak...

My opinion about EVIL has changed a lot since owning one.

[typeOnegative]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Jump into the water, then speak...

My opinion about EVIL has changed a lot since owning one.

I almost did. But touched the water and found it too cold.

If you see the picture of me holding my D90 in the DSLR thread, you will notice that I have big hands. Tried the NEX-5 and 3 and could not hold them at all. In fact I have started finding the HS10 puny as well.

[Sn1p3r]

^Panny and Olympus are definitely bigger than NEX series. Also the hand grip is more pronounced than the NEX.

My wife bought a HX5V in US. It is similar size to NEX and its just a point and shoot. My hunt for the next best 3/4 begins again.

[typeOnegative]

Originally Posted by Sn1p3r

^Panny and Olympus are definitely bigger than NEX series. Also the hand grip is more pronounced than the NEX.

My wife bought a HX5V in US. It is similar size to NEX and its just a point and shoot. My hunt for the next best 3/4 begins again.

But even those are smaller than the HS10 and I have started finding the HS10 small.

Are you referring to the 4/3 rds format or is there a new Three-Quarters format now?

[Samurai]

All the photographs in my i10 review are using E-PL1 + 9-18mm lens. Check it out.

https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/test-...10-sportz.html

[Sn1p3r]

^typeOnegative: she went shopping for NEX, but ended up buying HX5 for it's more point and shoot and pocketable.

@samurai: photos of i10 are stunning. Congrats!

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by Samurai

All the photographs in my i10 review are using E-PL1 + 9-18mm lens. Check it out.

https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/test-...10-sportz.html

I was going through your thread and did think that the photos are taken from some wide angle lens. Don't you think the vertical distortion is quite a lot from this lens?

[typeOnegative]

Originally Posted by Sn1p3r

^typeOnegative: she went shopping for NEX, but ended up buying HX5 for it's more point and shoot and pocketable.

Okay. But I kind of was wondering if the 3/4 is a new format of sensor.

[Sn1p3r]

Sony has again used its backside-illuminated Exmor R CMOS sensor instead of CCD, Bionz image processor, and a Sony G lens (tele lense) to try to solve two of the most common complaints about compact cameras: shooting performance and low-light photo quality. This time around they're in the Cyber-shot DSC-HX5V, a compact wide-angle megazoom.

Source CNET

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Sn1p3r

@samurai: photos of i10 are stunning. Congrats!

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Gandhi

I was going through your thread and did think that the photos are taken from some wide angle lens. Don't you think the vertical distortion is quite a lot from this lens?

I am not sure what vertical distortion you are referring to, can you point out the image?

Like any super-wide lens, there will be geometric distortions. Therefore, it is always software corrected. The JPGs gets corrected in-camera by the firmware. The raw files will have the lens distortion data encoded in by the camera. This data is then used by the raw converter like ACR to correct that distortion. If you saw quite a lot of distortion even after that, then either ACR or the camera didn't do its job.

On the other hand, you could be mistaking fish-eye effect as distortion. By moving close up with a wide angle lens, one can achieve desirable level of fish-eye effect. If one doesn't want it, one can move back and zoom to a higher focal length. This effect is only possible in very low focal lengths. It is up to the sense of composition of the photographer. What is good fish-eye effect for me, may be a lot of distortion for you. Whatever fish-eye effect in my shots are not by accident, I composed it that way.

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by Samurai

On the other hand, you could be mistaking fish-eye effect as distortion. Whatever fish-eye effect in my shots are not by accident, I composed it that way.

Looks like it. I mistook that intended effect as unintended distortion.

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Thanks.

I am not sure what vertical distortion you are referring to, can you point out the image?


On the other hand, you could be mistaking fish-eye effect as distortion. By moving close up with a wide angle lens, one can achieve desirable level of fish-eye effect. If one doesn't want it, one can move back and zoom to a higher focal length.

Samurai you are exactly getting what he has pointed to and I felt the same.But I do not agree to justification provided it is not a composition problem by stepping back you are not going to get the same view.

Smaller the focal length more is the perspective distortion so in terms of Angle of view 10mm on APS-C may be same as 16mm on FF but the perspective distortion is more in 10mm. This is the limitation for which people buy Full frame body instead of APS-C sensor
And this may be the reason for which many people will prefer NEX , NX or DSLR over micro 4/3.

However barring the ultra wide angle M4/3 is good for all other cases.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by amitk26

Samurai you are exactly getting what he has pointed to and I felt the same.But I do not agree to justification provided it is not a composition problem by stepping back you are not going to get the same view.

My lens not exactly an ultra-wide lens. The effective FL is 18-36mm. I have read multiple professional reviews on this specialist lens before I took the plunge. I believe it is my composition rather than lens distortion.

Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4-5.6 Lens Review: 4. Test results: Digital Photography Review

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 9-18mm f/4-5.6 ED - Review / Test Report - Analysis