Lens condensation made the image really soft.
Now every where I go in this tiny island here, I saw many many EOS M cameras. After all, the BCN ranking here seems to be really correct. This time I met many many people using some sort of EOS M's here in Osaka castle area.
In Hokkaido, in the last winter, I met 19 SE Asian tourists shooting with a EOS M50. In Fukuoka,in this summer, I met 7 Taiwanese guys using one of those.
In Nagasaki and Osaka there were more people using that camera. And according to my Chinese and Thai friends the Canon is already no 1 in mirrorless there too.
So that EOS M50 camera seems to be a huge success for Canon, at least in Asia.
At Sapporo station, I also spotted a several Sony A7X cameras there this year. I saw 21 tourists using Nikon D-SLRs ,11 using Fuji XT100.
Maybe 2 or 3 with the Fuji GFX and Hasselbald X1D.
The biggest change in camera demographic here in the last couple of years or so, is now no one uses any m43 here(Olympus cameras are especially unpopular). I haven't spotted any of these tiny m43 cameras since about summer 2016.....
Since about the same time Sony and Fuji have increased their presence respectively. Since about summer 2017, Canon has rapidly increased its presence in the mirrorless market here.
Now, I see one or two of EOS M X every where, I cannot just ignore those cameras now. I have to assume the real loser here is the Olympus and Pentax and they will be the next Samsung NX?
Or is it still the Nikon D that is really doomed?
Now, I think it is the m43 duo(Panasonic may be not so doomed) and here's Why m43 is so doomed now 30(updated6):
I think a few weeks back I wrote about Sony's financial results and they did not look good.......actually horrible.
And to me, Nikon's results do look actually worse than a month ago. But still they seem to some how manage to beat the small sensor rivals such as Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic.
Fuji is actually fine, and their systems are growing in their specific segment of market.
And we are very sure their camera business is still in black.
m43, on the other hand, seems to be losing considerable amount of money every year, and really rapidly becoming an unpopular niche system, they seem to be the only one real loser here even beaten by the D-SLR duo that they and their fan base really despise.
Despite of all negative press against D-SLRs and especially against Nikon and calling them as prehistoric dinosaurs of the camera world, Nikon somehow still manages to outsell all mirrorless manufactures. It seems Nikon outsells m43 duo by 3-1 ratio, and it is striking.
So why do even Nikon D-SLRs from prehistoric time(according to m43 fans)comfortably outsell the m43 duo and m43 duo seems to be the only one real loser here while all other mirrorless guys including Canon, Fuji and Sony are successfully increasing their sales, at least by value?
Is a typical m43 kit too bad a value camera system? Oversized ? Overpriced ? or both?
Is a m43 kit considerably smaller than a budget FF kit as the duo promised, especially after equalizing the DOF and light gathering power of all the systems in question?
As an avid admirer (no longer a owner) of many fine Olympus FT and mFT lenses, I'm sure the Zuiko 25mm f1.2 Pro will perform as good as it is advertised. But that is not the issue here. The main issue is the issue of the value or perceived value of the system.
The main and direct competitor to this lens is not the Zony 55 f1.8 (which together with an older A7 will cost ~2000 dallors, neither weather sealed), but the newer Fuji 35mm f2 (which together with a 2016 X-T2 will cost ~1500 dollars, both weather sealed, and as such closely comparable to this lens + an E-M1 in most respects).
In such comparison, this Zuiko will not favorably compete at all. It is both bigger and heavier than the Fuji 35 f2, and is priced 4times as much. It is not possible to expect a mFT sensor plus this lens to perform 3 times better than an APC sensor (and for the people interested, the flexibility in DOF will be more or less comparable). Keep in mind that X-T2 is no slouch either (and the X-H1 is extremely well received, maybe arguably the current best seller ILC camera) under 2k camera market.
By this pricing, they have not only priced the lens out of the mainstream m43 market, but have opened the door to some of their users to take a good look at the Fuji's X system. Not a good marketing strategy, IMHO. Olympus seems to be repeating the same mistakes that led them to terminate their original 43 system.......
This means, we can expect the price to either rapidly drop under the 1000 US mark over the next year (which will depress the price of their other lenses), or the X system gain even more momentum.
Many avid m43 guys in m43 forums seem to have heavily invested in m43 already, and they have no other place to go, so raving about the EM1MK2 and the super expensive new 25mm f1.2 Pro prime regardless of the prices they asked for these. So for them it may not be the issue, but if they were in the market and were looking at a system, I know for sure that Fuji X would look much more attractive in both performance and value than any of these high-end 20mp m43 bodies.
I wished Olympus'd gone the route of making pro grade, weather sealed f1.8 primes instead.
Many m43 fans,especially Olympus guys chant" f1.2 is f1.2 is f1.2 and is always big and expensive regardless of the sensor format".
But it should not be so, really........
First of all, many of m43 lovers are confused *f*/1.2, with the number *1*/1.2. The latter is an aperture ratio. To obtain the aperture = effective opening diameter, you have to insert the focal length f, then divided by 1.2. Therefore the opening is simply larger with a f = 50 mm lens vs. 25 mm. And for isotropic sources (as most reflection), the larger diameter gathers quadratically more light.
So the m43 25mm f1.2 lens should be about the half the price of the Canon 50mm f1.2L. But in reality it is just as expensive, that is why many even avid m43 shooters complaining about it.
Many Olympus fans claim the "photon efficiency" on smaller sensors is generally higher, more efficient but it is not true.
Historically, there has been a generational lag, where techniques like BSI were introduced first with small sensors in smartphone market. However, with Sony now also building 35 mm full frame BSI sensors, and with 90% quantum efficiency (QE), this is meaningless nowadays - except maybe comparing medium format against A7, and don't forget even the much maligned Canon 5D4 sensor(by DR fanatics in many camera forums) is now able to get 86 percent QE value. So even the Canon sensor is no longer bad, in fact quite a good one.
You cannot possibly exceed 100% QE, no matter how small your sensor is. Furthermore, small BSI sensors also practically do not exceed 90% QE (simply because you have to maintain gaps between pixels). So m43 loses here again miserably.
A lot of m43 fans hate the equivalence and choose to be misguided to believe the only one purpose of using fast primes is to get super shallow DOF,"only one eye in focus" kind of look, and they say they can get it with m43 with the set of f1.2 primes.........yeah they can get shallow DOF with a m43 plus f1.2 primes...........but I'd say they can get it easier and cheaper with FF. There is no honest coherent point in m43 community. The reality is there are many FF lenses capable of super shallow DOF exist and they do not cost much more than m43 f1.2 primes.
And a f1.2 lens on m43 is just like a f2.4 on fullframe and therefore it should cost like a FF f2 or f2.8 lens, not like a f1.2 FF lens.
Plus, of course, shallow depth of field is not the only point of shooting a fast lens.....and for DOF and light gathering power, ff f2.8 is about the same as m43 f1.4, and therefore a FF set up actually much cheaper than m43. Think about how much the good f1.4 m43 primes like PL12mm f1.4 costs......and how much a lens like Sony FE35mm f2.8 or Nikon AF-S28mm f1.8G costs........now you see my point, I guess.
On top of the above point , for light gathering power, a 19 element retro-focus design performs poorly, vs. the prevalent, 6-8 element double Gaussian design for normal lens (look everywhere, whether it's Canon, Sony, M-mount Leica). A design like the Olympus 25 mm f/1.2 Pro is really for DoF and image quality, but with little regard on the transmission.
Current Olympus lenses average a transmission of 0.97-0.98 per lens element, therefore this lens likely will be around T/1.5, i.e. the amount of light of a double Gaussian f/1.4.
Again, this proves my original point m43 is not a cheap or any more affordable system than a FF..............for the same noise level it must need 2 times brighter lenses than a FF and they don't exist, but lets assume they were existing, they'd cost much more than fullframe f2 lenses........and in the end you would have been paying about 3 times more for just FF f2.8 performance with m43.
My argument is *light transmission*, not image quality. And I am not arguing for or against any particular lens. But trying to compare 'systems' performance per $ in fair manner.
And ,BTW, many fullframe systems have some normal perspective macro lens, where you want to sacrifice some transmission for resolution and they are all super cheap compared to m43 version of these. The Sony FE50mm f2.8 macro costs only 400 US and that on a A7R is much sharper than any lens on any m43 body. Canon also has a similar lens, Nikon also has a decent 60mm f2.8 G macro lens and they all cost much less than the Panasonic Leice branded macro lens. Also, if you do not mind using a thirdparty macro lens, there are two incredible offerings from Cosina and Sigma for Sony system:
1 Sigma AF70mm f2.8 Art Macro (comes in Sony E and Canon EF)
2 Voigtlander 110mm f2.5(the best macro lens ever made by any one, albeit its full manual design).
Another big mistake the Olympus fanboys make in many silly camera forums is that they call their beloved Oly as Olympus system. But there is no Olympus system, period. It is called m43 system. Without Panasonic lenses, there is no m43 lens advantage that many Olympus fans claim Olympus has over Sony and Fuji.
Now,what is rather clear here is that some people with a single brand system lack any solid understanding of other brand competing systems that they do never touch or try out side of a studio or a shop. In fact, many of them seem not even understand there are many different types of system camera users even in their own mount system:
(1) also own other mount systems
(2) be critical to their own equipment
(3) only partial to what they currently own but clearly understanding why they have chosen it over the other systems. however, having some respect to all other brand systems in someway(although they do not choose them).
Let me also give you another hint, that people may not having Fujifilm (X-mount) simply being put off by the X-Trans sensor/CFA, or the terrible classic camera controls,in spite not displeased with Fujinon optics (not just still photography, but also cine/broadcasting lenses).
They are superb, nothing Olympus makes positively challenges to the best Fujinon lenses, especially zooms. The Fujinon XF16-55mm f2.8 is the current absolute best standard zoom in any mount. It beats the CanonEF24-70mm f2.8LMK2, the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8VR E, the Sony 24-70mm f2.8GM, and of course the Olympus ZD12-40mm f2.8 Pro according to Tokyo university science lab studies of these lenses.
And the Fuji X-T2 or X-Pro2 is a lot cheaper than the Olympus EM1MK2........I think the Olympus will cost about 1799USD and the Fuji rivals costs about 1400US or 159800 yen here. In fact, the Sony A7MK2 is even cheaper with a much bigger better sensor than the Olympus.
So now it is the right time to back to my first question here, the problem is seemingly the worst value of the m43 system.
The Olympus EM1MK2 and Panasonic GH5 are fantastic cameras, no doubt about it, period. But considering the 4 times smaller 6 times cheaper sensor choice of the system, they should not be as expensive or more expensive than the Canon 6D, Nikon D610 or the Sony ORIGINAL A7, which costs only 980 US or 89800 yen these days.
On top of that, for quality to quality comparison, Olympus Panasonic lenses are usually more expensive than the fullframe or Fuji rivals.
The new Olympus 25mm f1.2 Pro is as I wrote above not even as bright as the Canon 50mm f1.2L or even not as bright as the Sony 50mm f1.4 Z, but costs just as much as the fullframe rivals do. What really matter here is not the f number but the actual opening size and that is why the m43 25mm f1.2 is not equivalent to the full frame 50mm f1.2 , even not f1.4, but worse f2.4. So no matter how sharp it might be, we have to conclude it is overpriced and oversized. I think, now, Olympus Panasonic are just making the same mistakes they did in legacy SLR 43 era.
I think they should not challenge the FF rivals in the same field but in overall system functionality and reach.
I think many many people actually prefer innately deeper DOF at any given f number of m43 system, powerful dust-reduction system, 2x reach,etc, but they are just ignoring the natural or coherent strengths of the format and working against them, just to challenge the FF and APS-C based system..........
I think it is a huge mistake.
UPDATE: Everybody talks about weak build of Sony cameras but is it really true?
Now I think my A7R2 and A7R3 are quite well sealed, they were really soaked at this point and even more wet after that, but they worked just fine. I used a Ziplock back for protection but one of my A7R2 had nothing to protect it but it too survived. This was not a weak rain but hard intense one lasted 7 hours or so since it was a typhoon generated rain.
So now, I think I know the weak weather sealing and build quality of Sony cameras are all BS. It is a quite tough camera.
I used to shoot under this kind of weather many times with my EOS5DMK2 and EOS6D or Nikon D7000, D700, D800, D810, etc, and honestly none of these were actually better than my A7RX cameras. In fact, in my real world experience, the weakest ones were those Canon D-SLR's and toughest ones were the Nikon D8xx and D700. Of course, the D5, D4 and D3 are all tougher but I do not like the sensor in these and I do not like the size of these.
So I think I will compromise a bit of body toughness for a bit more manageable size and I think the D750 size is the best balanced for most of things. For me the A7R3 and especially the R2 is a bit too small. I really want a bit bigger version of my A7R3.
I think the real problem of Sony system is weak barrel design of their G and Zeiss designated lenses. The GMaster lenses are better but the G and especially Sony Zeiss ones are extremely weak.
UPDATE2: During my recent academic trip to Osaka, I was really kind of convinced that maybe BNC ranking is right.
At most of tourists venues we visited there, I saw many many EOS M cameras. The BCN ranking here seems to be really correct. This time I met many many people using some sort of EOS M.
At this temple I met 12 SE Asian tourists shooting with a EOS M50. That camera seems to be a huge success for Canon, at least in Asia.
I also spotted a several Sony A7X cameras here.
But I saw no Nikon , no m43 here.
Maybe, is it the m43 duo that is really doomed or is it Nikon?
Well, Nikon may not be dead yet, but they may fail with the new Z system soon, I think it will not be a very successful system since they will have no lens to back it up, at least at the launch, and Nikon does not seem to have the courage to open the mount architecture.
This means unlike the E mount or m43 system, Nikon will not get much help by any of those major third party lens makers.
I think this is a big sign of a failing system.
After all, Nikon is a about 3 times smaller company than Olympus and about 12 times smaller than Pana.
UPDATE3 : now we know the excessively wide mount diameter of the Nikon Z mount and many people are guessing it will be a FF and MF mount rather than a APS-C-FF mount.
Many Nikon fans take it positively but if it is a FF mount that also covers the small MF sensor image circle, then it would be too big for an APS-C and APS-C is the still dominant format in ILC. Ignoring that sensor size may be a big mistake.
But I think it is not the case since we have heard many times that Nikon would release a several mirrorless bodies this year ;two FF and two APS-C.
I hope it is really true. Many forums experts love the idea of it is a FF optimized mount that is big enough to also cover a small MF sensor like the one in Hasselblad X1D, but MF is really a niche thing, too small a market to even take seriously.
And making a FF mount that also covers a small MF sensor, then it would be too big for FF, let alone APS-C/DX.
If that is the case, the new Z system would have huge lenses , I mean excessively huge ones for just a 35mm format body.
UPDATE4: the poor battery life of the Z7 even with the D-SLR sized big battery clearly shows us how inefficient Nikon power management system really is, it's embarrassing.
Many D-SLR guys mocked Sony A7R3 for that, but even a smaller battery the A7R3 lasts much longer than the Z7.
The Z7 sensor and ergonomics are very attractive to some of us but it as a whole system seems to be much less attractive than the A7R3 system with 40+ lens to back it up.
UPDAE5: Nikon has decided to close the mount to the major thirdparty lens makers. This means that there may be no Sigma or Samyang cheap but sharp AF primes for this system.
And there would be no Batis, either.
There will be Loxia nad Laowa manual focus lenses I think but they do not make any AF primes for this system.
Nikon confirmed that they would not allow any thirdparty AF lenses and not disclosing their AF protocols to any of these third parties (except Tamron).
Without Sigma and Samyang, the system can be a very very expensive system, maybe much more expensive than the E mount system.
UPDATE6: Now we know the actual sells numbers for this month and the last month at our shops and the rival shops here and the results are really surprising.
The no1 selling camera now is the D750 especially after the price for the Z7 announced. And the A7MK3 is selling better than before too, maybe because people got hugely disappointed with the new Nikon pricing strategy?
Another important trend I have write about here is that we have got so many A7R3 and A7R2 cheap from the people moving back to Canon or Nikon mirrorless for D-SLR system.
Also, now at the discounted price, the 5DMK4 is also doing very well.
After the last series of FF mirrorless announcements in last month, actually DSLR sells seems to be increasing quite a bit, and I think this is a sign of many people thought the Nikon Z7 and Canon R were a huge disappointment.
I do not think the camera itself was so bad , actually good, but the lens lineup is really lousy. And the Z7 is really overpriced. It is about 500 US more than the D850, and it has only 3 lenses currently. And the biggest issue with the Z7 as a system is the new adapter does not work well with many F mount lenses.
So how can Nikon expect to sell that body?
UPDATE7: Today I retested the Nikon Z7. This was my first time to try the Z24-70mmf4S lens with the latest FW installed both on the body and the lens.
The AF speed was impressive, I'd say a tiny bit more sure and reliable than my A7R3 and A7R2. It is just as fast as the A7MK3 we compared to it. The lowlight focusing ability was a bit better than my A7R3 and the A7MK3 we compared to it.
The buffer clearing time was also very fast, much better than that of my A7R3, no comparison to my A7R2.
So over all the AF seems to be at least as good or a bit better than the A7R3 and probably as good as the A7MK3, which is a bit faster and better than the A7R3 in action AF and overall speed.
The flash unit I used to day with the Z7 was the old SB710 but it worked as well as it did with any Nikon D-SLR body.
The Z7 body feels much more solid than my A7R3 and a bit heavier than my own camera. But the lens mounted on it is smaller and lighter lens than my own lens I mounted on my A7R3 , so the kit is indeed a bit lighter than my A7R3 plus FE24-70mmf2.8GM kit.
The Nikon Z24-70mmf4S is optically an excellent lens, maybe even better than my FE24-70mmf2.8GM or from 35mm and on, but the build feels really cheap like a cheap kit lens.
I have shot a short video of a cat dancing and a few hundred images with it in just my 45 minutes of test time there.
But the battery seems to last much longer than many YouTube morons seem to believe it does, I think they do use the camera with the mount adapter, which actually uses up a lot of extra battery power according to a Nikon rep I talked with about it today.
The camera becomes quite a bit slower with the mount adapter and a F mount lens , the AF with a F mount lens is noticeably slower and worse than with a native lens.
It was extremely fast with the 50mm f1.8S lens(prototype) and the 35mm f1.8S lens.
I may get the body plus the 24-70mmf4S and 35mm f1.8S plus the mount adapter but I am not sure I will use the adapter since it slows down the camera quite significantly...
The video file seems to be good but still have no time to grade it yet, the file is huge and it requires a lot of time to edit it. One thing I dislike about the Z24-70mmf4S is that it extends two times when you actually use it. You must turn it to extend it to actual usable state(24mm wide end ) then again you need to zoom it in to the exact focal range you want. So I think it sucks a lot of dust and the sensor gets quite dirty very soon.
I think Canon was smarter in this regard, their zooms do not extend two times, also the EOS R has lens shutter cover which closes to protect the shutter unit and sensor itself when the camera turned off.
The Z24-70mmf4S feels very cheap but optically a sharp lens across the frame throughout the range. It was very sharp even at 70mm f4 setting. I have no issues with its optical quality or performance, but I do not think its build warrants its over 1k US price. It really feels like the cheap Sony FE28-70mm kit lens, which I had only 4 days on my first A7R.
UPDATE 8: Today I tried the EOS R on the latest (probably the final FW), it was a fast, very solid camera. For my hand, the EOSR feels a bit better than the Nikon Z7(I could not try the Z6 yet). The Canon mount seems much stronger than that Nikon Z mount since the Canon R has a bit thicker body due to its a bit longer registration distance of 20mm vs 16mm of Nikon.
The Nikon Z7 felt a bit heavier than the EOS R, but the R seemed a bit bigger. The RF24-105mmf4 L lens feels much more solid and durable(I do not know it is actually more durable than the Nikon) than the Nikon Z24-70mmf4S kit lens.
But I think the Nikon is a bit better lens optically, or I have to say I believe it is the best optically corrected std zoom ever made for any 135mm format camera system.
The Canon RF35mm f1.8 macro is a interesting lens and this lens alone really makes me want a EOS R body. The RF35mm f1.8 Macro IS is the lens I have been long waiting for from Sony or Zeiss or Tamron or anyone for my A7RX.
The Canon EOS R focuses really fast, and the new DPAF seems more reliable than the AF of my Sony A7R3 and R2(of course), it seems to be a much better improved version of the DPAF of the EOSM50, which I was always interested and may get as a travel light camera down the road.
In video mode, the Z7 is definitely better producing much more durable files, with a bit color science than both the Canon R and the Sony A7R3.
But the Nikon Z7 AF is useless for video, the Canon AF is really good for video by comparison. So maybe run and gun style documentary, the EOS R may be a bit better choice...if we need the reliable AF.
According to Canon's Canon has designed and developed the RF mount for the best balance between extreme optical design freedom and the best mount reliability ( physical strength).. If it is for just simple optical freedom, then they could have made it even shallower like the Nikon, but they feel it would not be reliable , durable enough for their pro use standard. So they made it a bit thicker.
I do not know if Canon is telling us the truth but I feel it may be the case since the R feels a bit more solid than the Nikon Z7 body.
I think the EVF of the Z7 is better than that of the R or the A7R3...especially in low light places.
The main differences of the two that I feel very important to note here are:
1 the R focuses much better in lowlight.
2 the R focuses much more reliably with an adapted lens.
I think the 2 is a very huge thing since all of those cameras require adapting their respective old mount lenses.
The Z7's biggest issue (at least for me) is the AF really slows down with an adapted F mount lens.....its AF is excellent with a native Z mount lens, though.
So for now, as we need many EF or F mount lenses still, the R may be a more solid offering. But in the long run, I think the Z7 may be a better choice since its sensor is a bit better, the Z mount lenses seem excellent optically.
But for my personal needs, as it will be my sub system (or second system or even third if I were really honest) , I cannot justify the price of the Z7. So I would love to try the Z6 soon, but it is not available till November.
And the current selection of lenses for the Z7/6 might be too limited as the F mount lenses do not work very well on it(the EF mount lenses work very well on my A7R3 R2 and of course on the new Canon too).
Another huge downer of the Z system is the XQD card, it makes the system much more expensive than my Sony system or the new Canon R system. If I get the R, I can share my over 200 plus SD cards across all my systems including the Canon M , the Sony E, FE, the Panasonic G and the new R.
But if I get the Nikon I need a few new XQD cards and they are very expensive every where.
I mean I can get a super fast UHS2 64GB SD card for just 32 USD or so here, but I'd have to pay more than 130 USD for a decent high quality 64GB XQD card. And one card is not enough, I might have to buy at least 7 or 8 of these with the Z7 or the Z6.....that is expensive.
UPDATE 9: As I first wrote about the new Panasonic FF rumor in 2016, and I suggested Panasonic should do it, many people especially Nikon fans complained about the accuracy of the rumor and many said even if that would be really true, they would not be able to compete with the traditional camera companies like Nikon, Canon and Olympus.
Many of these people just condescendingly criticized Panasonic and its camera products unreliable or not durable enough(although they have never used any of Panasonic cameras). They said they would not trust Panasonic or Sony cameras as they feel so cheap, unreliable or probably not durable enough for serious field work even though most of those people had no real life experience with any of Panasonic camera products or Sony's.
Many traditional camera company fanboys try to tell us Sony or Panasonic cameras are much less reliable than traditional camera branded cameras.......and therefore they will never use it.. It is fine that they do not like Panasonic cameras, they do not want to use these, but please do not mislead the public.
I find the Panasonic cameras very durable and very incredibly reliable in real world use.
And their cameras have exceptional heat dissipation system and incredibly power management system that allows the system run much cooler than the Nikon, Canon equivalents.
So even after 8 hours of a long video work session, they've never overheated, just worked and worked flawlessly.
Maybe surprisingly to some, but it has been the big name traditional camera brands - Olympus, Nikon , Canon and Fuji that have needed warranty support. New blow-ins to the camera world - Sony and Panasonic - those companies that've come from an electronic goods background are probably more sensitive to the costs of providing regular warranty care and do their utmost to make gear that outlasts their normal working life and not just the warranty period. I have appreciated this.
And therefore, I trust Panasonic cameras much more than anything from Nikon or Canon world, I have never had any Panasonic cameras that broke on me in the middle of a very important shooting session. And all my Sony A7RX cameras even the very original one from 2013 still work flawlessly.
I think those electronics camera companies' cameras are much more reliable than those from Nikon, Canon or Olympus. After all, all digital cameras are just pure computers with a shutter unit. But the global shutter tech will eventually eliminate the mechanical shutter too.
So no CN advantage over the rest and I think actually the electronics giants like Sony and Pana have the huge edge over them.
