Looking for: D40 equivalent that shoots HD motion

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

I appreciate your verbose input in trying to help me out. I really am no photography buff so most of the stuff goes way over my head, i hate to say cause i really appreciate everyone's help so far

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Technology has advanced to the point where the newest MFT sensors (which are all 16MP unlike the older 12MP sensors) are pretty competitive with crop-body DSLRs.

Not so much. while the GH2 would have slightly better Image Quality than the old D40 (2006 technology), newer crop body DSLRs will blow the GH2 out of the water IQ-wise.

For example, the D3200 has a 60% larger sensor and (dxomark scores) 40% better Image Quality.

http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D3200-vs-Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-GH2

 

[blastingcap]

Not so much. while the GH2 would have slightly better Image Quality than the old D40 (2006 technology), newer crop body DSLRs will blow the GH2 out of the water IQ-wise.

For example, the D3200 has a 60% larger sensor and (dxomark scores) 40% better Image Quality.

http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D3200-vs-Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-GH2

Are you new to interchangeable-lens cameras or something? Do you really believe Snapsort is doing anything useful by simply dividing Dxomark overall scores into each other? Do you think Dxomark overall scores are some sort of linear scale from zero to infinity? If you want to look at subscores like dynamic range or something sure, but the aggregate is meaningless. "40% better image quality" LMAO. It's an ARBITRARY SCALE. You can start the scale wherever you want, it doesn't mean squat. Is 10 degrees Celsius "twice as hot" as 5 degrees Celsius?

http://www.flickr.com/groups/gh2/pool/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikon-d3200/pool/

Do you notice how the worth of a photo is not in this mythically whatever-percentage better image quality, but in subject, composition, lighting, etc.?

Large sensor freaks are such hypocrites. If all that matters is sensor size and whatever you deem image quality, why do you not use a medium or even large format camera? Gee, maybe because other things matter too, such as weight, cost, availability of lenses, articulating LCD and video capability, wanting to blend in more rather than looking like a tourist dork, etc.

The large sensor fetish is absurd. Yeah you get extra DoF, but lose a bit of macro power, and you can always blur things but you can't add more DoF afterwards. Yeah you get higher ISO if you have more area per photosite, but beyond a certain point high ISO is not as useful (except for night action sports photographers or something). If you continually find yourself needing to shoot at ISO 12800 or something, maybe it's time you invested in a flash, or used a stabilized lens, or tripod, or something.

Technology marches on. The best MFT sensor (in the E-M5) is roughly as good as the D90/D300 sensor. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that award-winning photos shot with a D90/D300 are now piles of crap? Let's say that 5 years from now, the latest MFT sensor is as good as the D3200's sensor. Are you then going to say that that MFT sensor is crap, and that whatever latest-and-greatest APS-C sensor is "40% better image quality"? Seriously? (The sad part is that I bet there are some people who really would say that.)

Believe it or not, you do reach a point where a sensor is "good enough." An E-M5 can produce great photos printable up to roughly 20x30". When was the last time you printed larger than that? Few people actually need 24MP, and 24MP is going to take up more HDD space and make cheap lenses look bad... to put it into computer terms, a soft lens will bottleneck a high-resolution sensor.

Nevertheless, I'm glad there are some people like you still around, as it raises the value of my Nikon F-mount gear as I sell it off.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Blastingcap, I begin to see where you got your moniker

"Are you new to interchangeable-lens cameras or something?"

Nope. While I get what you are saying, I don't really see how it makes the GH2 sensor as good as a larger, just as advanced, sensor. Larger sensors are always better, everything else being equal. That is simple physics. Your temperature illustration is a bad one, since the temperature scale does not start at "0".

"The best MFT sensor (in the E-M5) is roughly as good as the D90/D300 sensor."

Probably so, as those are older technology. A smaller sensor will never be better than a larger sensor of equal tech for the potential quality of still images.


The whole "Large sensor freaks are such hypocrites. If all that matters is sensor size and whatever you deem image quality, why do you not use a medium or even large format camera?" argument is idiotic. Whoever claimed that it was "all" that matters? You said that m4/3 is just as good as crop sensor in still shots. What else could you have been talking about besides the quality of the image?

 

[shortylickens]

Alright, you guys settle down or I'll be forced to hose you off.

 

[blastingcap]

Blastingcap, I begin to see where you got your moniker

"Are you new to interchangeable-lens cameras or something?"

Nope. While I get what you are saying, I don't really see how it makes the GH2 sensor as good as a larger, just as advanced, sensor. Larger sensors are always better, everything else being equal. That is simple physics. Your temperature illustration is a bad one, since the temperature scale does not start at "0".

"The best MFT sensor (in the E-M5) is roughly as good as the D90/D300 sensor."

Probably so, as those are older technology. A smaller sensor will never be better than a larger sensor of equal tech for the potential quality of still images.


The whole "Large sensor freaks are such hypocrites. If all that matters is sensor size and whatever you deem image quality, why do you not use a medium or even large format camera?" argument is idiotic. Whoever claimed that it was "all" that matters? You said that m4/3 is just as good as crop sensor in still shots. What else could you have been talking about besides the quality of the image?

What I am objecting to is your simplistic statement:

"... newer crop body DSLRs will blow the GH2 out of the water IQ-wise. For example, the D3200 has a 60% larger sensor and (dxomark scores) 40% better Image Quality."

1. No mention about how Dxomark is screwed up sometimes, like not accounting for fixed-pattern noise ("banding") in DR measurements

2. No mention of Dxomark's margin of error. Do you know what it is and how that would impact what they try to hard to furnish (an image of legitimate quantitative measurements).

3. No mention of how Dxomark comes up with its subscores.

4. No mention of how Dxomark comes up with overall score or weighting.

5. No mention of non-linear relationship between photosite size and photons captured. "60% bigger sensor" sounds impressive until you realize it's the square that counts. The difference between a MFT sensor and APS-C sensor is less than a stop; it's actually something like

6. No mention of how photosites vary with sensor size and pixel count.

7. No mention of how necessary or unnecessary Moar Pixels are. Most people don't even print 13x19 let alone anything bigger.

8. No mention of how you'd have to buy expensive lenses to fully utilize those Moar Pixels.

9. No mention of how sensor technology is based on semiconductors and will continue to progress, and how it may have already progressed to the point where smaller sensors may be "good enough" for most people's purposes.

10. Outrageous remark of how the D3200 would "blow away" a GH2 without any substantiation other than Snapsort, which is using Dxomark data in a way that would probably make even Dxomark engineers laugh.

The main advantage of bigger sensors at this point is more megapixels, but most people don't even need them. (Dynamic range, etc. are in theory not impacted as long as it's the same manufacturing process and photosite size.)

Kirk Tuck, who has used medium format cameras professionally, as well as full frame and smaller, seems to like MFT cameras quite a lot. But hey he's only a pro, what does he know?

"The reality as I see it is this: Most of the cameras on the market right now, that have recent sensors of 16 megapixels and more, will do a good job creating the files we need for most of our uses. In web advertising, most print, all newspaper, high res monitor display, etc. the 12 megapixel cameras dating back to the Nikon D2X are all perfectly capable. The newest cameras offer lower high ISO noise." - http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-i-think-olympus-om-d-em-5-is-making.html

(Btw, Kirk loves the G3 even though it has a worse sensor than the GH2, so presumably whatever good things he says about G3 image quality goes extra for the GH2: http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2012/02/small-camera-ive-been-playing-with.html)

Other pros agree:

"One thing I noticed about a lot of pros in the past few years: we talk far less about pixel count than we used to. We're more often talking about lens selection, perspective, and light these days than bemoaning something our cameras can't do. Somewhere we crested a pass and have moved on to things that are more important to our work. Sure, we'll take some more pixels if none of the other things we count on don't go backwards, but we're in no hurry to grab more pixels. We have enough for most of our jobs. So here's a question to you: don't you have enough pixels for what you do?" - Thom Hogan (who is a Nikon pro) https://plus.google.com/112847428408357711502/posts/An2ngJUVDUo

Then there is this pro who shoots MFT a lot on the job and doesn't feel like he needs to try to "wow" clients with massive cameras: http://blog.giuliosciorio.com/?p=550

I could go on, but the point is that there are a lot of pros who deem MFT quite good and enough to replace ASP-C DSLRs in many situations. This is my own conclusion as well. A lot of people talking about how X camera "blows away " Y camera aren't even that good of photographers. The blowing away part is in things like composition, lighting, and technique. This is why a pro with a D40 is likely to "blow away" a novice with a D3200.

See also: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&message=42329636

AFAIK, there are exactly zero pros who think snapsort's division of Dxomark numbers is useful, and I bet virtually all pros would laugh at your statement about "40% better image quality."

You are entitled to your own opinion of course. If you believe your statement was a serious statement rather than a laughable one, then you won't mind if I use it in my signature line, right? So people on this forum will know how much of a genius you are, of course.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Blastingcap,

Wow, you sure are passionate about this. Is this some sort of pet-peeve? Regardless of the number of words you type, everything else being equal a larger sensor will outperform a smaller sensor. Do you have anything objective to back up the GH2 having IQ equal to a modern crop sensor DSLR? Even in your own words, it is only equivalent to a D90 or a D300 and the D3200 has more than 20% better image quality than a D300.

http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D3200-vs-Nikon_D300

ROFLMAO!!!!

Hey, I get what you’re saying. Of course my answer was simplistic, the % numbers are quotes from snapsort and I linked to where I got it from. I really shouldn’t have to handhold everyone when it’s all there right in front of you.

Take a pill, dude!

==============

EDIT: Almost forgot...

AFAIK, there are exactly zero pros who think snapsort's division of Dxomark numbers is useful, and I bet virtually all pros would laugh at your statement about "40% better image quality."

Even though I have consistently referred to myself as a "corporate hack" on this site, I get paid a pretty good wage to take photos. Hence, I AM a Pro. So There! You can't make that same statement tomorrow. ;-)

 

[blastingcap]

First, because I prefaced what I said with "AFAIK," what I wrote was true at the time and is also not at the heart of the matter. Not that all pros are created equal--I've seen some really bad "pros" and there have even been threads on here making fun of the many bad photographers out there who somehow get paid. But once again, this is not at the heart of my argument.

Second, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop attempting to attack me based on various insinuations. This *is* an enthusiast forum after all, and it's nowhere near the level of "passion" that'd you find in even more specialized forums like dpreview. So I'd appreciate it if you'd address points directly.

Third, I'm not sure why you're beating a straw man rather than actually addressing what I wrote. I never said larger sensors wouldn't outperform--go read what I wrote again. What I did say was that MFT is "good enough" for a lot of people already. What you are saying is theoretical, but I am dragging you back to practice. What you are suggesting is something like "moar cores, more Mhz, moar moar moar" when for the vast majority of people we already have fast-enough CPUs. It's a waste of money and electricity to get a big, heavy hot-rod laptop when a cheaper, lighter, more energy efficient laptop would do just as well for most people. (In fact, people desire portability so much they are even willing to sacrifice physical keyboards to get it--witness the iPad for example. Small form factor, handles most common tasks as well as a laptop, and in some ways is even better than power-user laptops.) Ditto with 24MP DSLRs with acceptable but not particularly good video capabilities: most people would probably be better served with more compact and cheaper cameras with better video, even if they lose the ability to blow photos up to huge sizes at high dpi, because most people only use their photos for viewing on 2MP screens or more modestly sized prints.

Lastly, are you going to answer my question or not? I will ask again: May I quote your "blow away" and "40%" remarks in my signature line? Can I also add this new gem of yours: "the D3200 has more than 20% better image quality than a D300."

You're backtracking now by saying you're merely the messenger, but if you know snapsort is flawed, why are you perpetuating the myth? That's like a politican repeating a stat he knows is wrong but was nevertheless published in a tabloid, and then hiding behind the "well I didn't write it" excuse. And if you don't think snapsort is flawed, then by implication, you think there's a way to quantify image quality down to the exact percentage, and I am just rotflmao at the thought. Perhaps you are also a professional comedian.

Blastingcap,

Wow, you sure are passionate about this. Is this some sort of pet-peeve? Regardless of the number of words you type, everything else being equal a larger sensor will outperform a smaller sensor. Do you have anything objective to back up the GH2 having IQ equal to a modern crop sensor DSLR? Even in your own words, it is only equivalent to a D90 or a D300 and the D3200 has more than 20% better image quality than a D300.

http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D3200-vs-Nikon_D300

ROFLMAO!!!!

Hey, I get what you’re saying. Of course my answer was simplistic, the % numbers are quotes from snapsort and I linked to where I got it from. I really shouldn’t have to handhold everyone when it’s all there right in front of you.

Take a pill, dude!

==============

EDIT: Almost forgot...



Even though I have consistently referred to myself as a "corporate hack" on this site, I get paid a pretty good wage to take photos. Hence, I AM a Pro. So There! You can't make that same statement tomorrow. ;-)

 

[JohnnyRebel]

if you know snapsort is flawed, why are you perpetuating the myth?

First, I don't know that snapsort is flawed. They are what they are, and it is there for anyone to see.

In any case, my sincere apologies if I offended you. That was not my primary intention, though in hindsight I was wrongly amused at the fervent tone to your responses.

I can agree that m4/3 is good enough for a lot of stuff. I cannot agree that m4/3 is up to modern crop sensor performance. I do think that dxomark scores have merit, but I do not think that it is the end-all-be-all. It is merely one measure. There are tons of variables that go onto a great shot. Most of which are behind the camera. But, we are only talking about one person behind the camera so most those variables are moot to what we are talking about.

Also, the 20% comment was a joke (see "roflmao" just afterwards).

I never said larger sensors wouldn't outperform--go read what I wrote again. What I did say was that MFT is "good enough" for a lot of people already.

Actually what you said was:

the newest MFT sensors (which are all 16MP unlike the older 12MP sensors) are pretty competitive with crop-body DSLRs.

I read "pretty competitive" as equivalent, rather than as "good enough"

So anyway, I'll give it to you. You win. The m4/3 is good enough for anybody if they are good enough.

 

[blastingcap]

"They are what they are." Meaningless statement is meaningless. Snapsort take two numbers which are themselves aggregates of other measures, and divides them and claims it means one sensor is x% better than another, something meaningless. You can try to reframe that however you want, but that's the bottom line. It's like dividing the Dow by the S&P.. you get a number, but it's not very useful, and you're better off comparing subscores instead like dynamic range score vs. dynamic range score.

You made a sweeping statement ("blow away" "40%") with weak support and I'm glad you have clarified what you said. I can agree with much of what you said even if it took you a while to clarify. Many things miniaturize as technology progresses, and so will camera sensors. Someday, FX will become what medium format is today--specialized and niche.

I am also amused that you put my quote in your sig line. Feel free to keep my quote in your sig line in order to draw attention to your own words; it's like you're doing my work for me, lol. Not that I was entirely serious about putting your quote into my sig line.

By the way, not all APS-C camera sensors are equal. Sony is significantly ahead of every other major camera sensor manufacturer right now, to the point where the Sony-made Oly E-M5 sensor is more or less tied with Canon's midrange and maybe even high-end APS-C sensors. (This is also true at the high end, where the D800's image sensor beats Canon's 5dMkIII sensor.) Plus Canon APS-C (1.6x crop) sensors are slightly smaller than Nikon/Sony/Pentax 1.5x crop sensors which makes it just that much more difficult for Canon to keep ahead of the Sony-made MFT sensor.

Anyway, let's not derail the thread further.

First, I don't know that snapsort is flawed. They are what they are, and it is there for anyone to see.

In any case, my sincere apologies if I offended you. That was not my primary intention, though in hindsight I was wrongly amused at the fervent tone to your responses.

I can agree that m4/3 is good enough for a lot of stuff. I cannot agree that m4/3 is up to modern crop sensor performance. I do think that dxomark scores have merit, but I do not think that it is the end-all-be-all. It is merely one measure. There are tons of variables that go onto a great shot. Most of which are behind the camera. But, we are only talking about one person behind the camera so most those variables are moot to what we are talking about.

Also, the 20% comment was a joke (see "roflmao" just afterwards).



Actually what you said was:



I read "pretty competitive" as equivalent, rather than as "good enough"

So anyway, I'll give it to you. You win. The m4/3 is good enough for anybody if they are good enough.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Blasitingcap,

My wife just told me that I was being a Jerk and to logon and apologize. I thought that your comment to me was funny, and I was trying to be witty myself, but it seems it just came off as idiotic.

As an aside, what do you think of the original PEN E-PL1? It can be had refurb on Adorama with two lenses for $299. I'm thinking about a starter for my 14 yr old son.

 

[blastingcap]

You're not being a jerk per se, just going off topic and I apologize for going off topic as well.

I will tell you my 2 cents with the caveat that everybody needs to figure out his or her own needs. There is no one size fits all camera or system. There are relatively cheap DSLRs and compacts that may fit one's needs better, such as a cheap rebel, Nikon J1/V1, or truly pocketable compacts like the S100. I also hear good things about the Sony RX100, Panasonic LX-5, and Oly XZ-1 and their upcoming replacements. It may even be the case that one may need multiple cameras, like the ever-popular DSLR + S100 combo. Or how some people have camcorders or waterproof cameras to deal with their video needs or having a disposable camera for kayaking trips.

I'm of the opinion that if I could afford only ONE system, it'd be a MFT camera because it's the smallest interchangeable-lens system that futureproofed for at least the next 1-2 decades and gives good image quality up to 20x30" (at least the E-M5 which is soon to be followed by more Sony-powered Oly cameras). Smartphone cameras will eventually destroy most compact camera sales except the superzooms, waterproof cameras, and other such specialty cameras. They may even get rather close to the Pentax/Nikon mirrorless systems within a few years (witness the Nokia Pureview 808). So I'm not willing to pay a lot for anything smaller than a MFT sensor and do not plan on replacing my Canon S95 when it eventually dies or becomes obsolete. A good second choice is DX/APS-C because of the vast volume of glass for that mount, but for me personally that's more image quality than I need, and I backpack/camp/hike a lot and I feel every ounce of those big and heavy bodies and lenses in my pack. I also love EVFs and the WYSIWYG nature of mirrorless cameras. That's for me personally, though, and everybody has his or her own needs.

With that caveat out of the way, here are my 2 cents:

E-PL1: 230k dot 2.7" LCD is shockingly bad by today's standards for a >$100 camera. The lens is also flawed (see SLRGear review of the 14-42mm Oly lens vs the 14-42mm II Oly lens) at 1/100 second shutter speeds or so. The E-PL1 also does not focus well or quickly in low light and has no low-light assist lamp. It also lacks a thumb dial.

E-PL2: Fixes the E-PL1's flaws listed above and you can buy a refurb model w/ kit lens for $299 at Cameta Camera. With two kit lens for somewhat more. The Oly kit lenses (14-42 and 40-150) are actually surprisingly good for the cost. I guess it really is cheaper to make smaller lenses for smaller sensors. For low light you will need faster glass of course. Lastly, if you are adventurous you can use adapters and utilize the in-body image stabilization on Oly cameras.

The downside is that the only good sensors are the 16MP MFT sensors in the E-M5, G3, GX1, GH2, etc. The Panasonic 16MP sensor is a little behind a modern Canon Rebel sensor with the E-M5 very close if not equal to a modern Canon Rebel sensor or older Nikon sensor like the D90. The cheaper 12MP MFT cameras are all using lousier Panasonic sensors that suffer at high ISOs and are at least one stop behind a modern Canon Rebel.

The upside is that the older 12MP cameras are cheap, even cheaper than a new Canon S100 for instance.

P.S. I had not revisted Sony rumors in a while and apparently they have a 16-50 pancake lens in the works that is very, very intriguing. The main problem with APS-C is larger and heavier lenses, but if Sony engineers managed to shrink the size without too much of a quality hit, that may be enough for me to switch to Sony even though I hate the company for various reasons (DRM/rootkit, etc.). I've been with MFT long enough to know what a cluster**** Pany/Oly marketing and distribution is (witness the horrible shortages and delays for USA market for 20/1.7 and 25/1.4 at launch), and it's been tempting in the past to go with a company with an actual logistics department, but what's kept me in the MFT camp is the high-quality lenses. If Sony can make high-quality pancake zooms then that is a very compelling alternative to MFT.

 

[Cattykit]

It you value photographic performance and quality, I'd have suggested OM-D over GH-2 since OM-D is miles better in that department. But, for video, GH2 is the king.

Though it might seem outdated since so many cameras came out and that that GH3 is on the horizon, it still outperforms all the other cameras in the market today. There's no DSLR, DSLT, EVIL cameras that can do what GH2 does and it seem like it's going to be that way for a while.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

When is the GH3 expected to be released and what price can i expect it to be?

I have an LX3, and a D40, and a Canon HF S 100.

I'm a novice shooter but I enjoy a good quality camera for good quality pictures. What I'm mainly looking for is compatible output file formats and shooting frames. The Canon shoots 24p 30p & 60i frame rates and stores it in .MTS

What is so big about pf 24 as described by my Canon? My canon says it shoots 24 & 30 pf, and 60i.. but the 24 & 30 are shot in 60i. Are they stored in pf? I'm not even sure what pf means, maybe picture frame?

copied from the canon website:
Frame Rate 60i, 24p Progressive (records at 60i), 30p Progressive (records at 60i)

Thanks

 

[Cattykit]

Check www.43rumors.com
As you'll see, there are nothing but rumors for now. But, good rumors rather than silly ones.

GH2 follows AVCHD standard along with a 24p 24mbps option. Though the rest of frame rates are stuck with rather aged AVCHD standard, you can easily upgrade it by applying 'hack' patch. It looks like HF S100 also follows AVCHD standard just like GH2 so you wouldn't have a problem mixing them together.

As for your other questions, just google it. It'll give you tons of explanations on why you shouldn't use 'pf' formats unless you have very specific need for it.

 

[SecurityTheatre]

Personally, I'm generally unhappy with the Depth of Field performance of most setups when I have less than f/1.8 on a full frame sensor. It almost doesn't matter what I'm shooting (except macro or deep-field landscapes), when I shoot at f/1.8 people say "wow, amazing!" and when I shoot at f/4 people say "hmm good snap".

To me, that's one of the main differences. Even an f/1.4 lens on a m4/3 body has more DoF than my f/5.6 lenses on a full frame body. That concerns me. Everyday snaps, birthdays or whatever look amateurish to me when they have so much DoF. Sure, sometimes there's a reason for it, but more than 50% of the time, you are looking to isolate the subject and unless you're shooting very tight, you can't do it with smaller sensors.

Just my 2c, though.

I find my "walkaround" kit these days to be the 50mm f/1.4 and an 85mm f/1.8. It almost feels like cheating because half decent composition results in "wow" from viewers without any effort using these fast primes on a big sensor...

*Shrug*

But it's not ideal for everyone, obviously.

 

[blastingcap]

Personally, I'm generally unhappy with the Depth of Field performance of most setups when I have less than f/1.8 on a full frame sensor. It almost doesn't matter what I'm shooting (except macro or deep-field landscapes), when I shoot at f/1.8 people say "wow, amazing!" and when I shoot at f/4 people say "hmm good snap".

To me, that's one of the main differences. Even an f/1.4 lens on a m4/3 body has more DoF than my f/5.6 lenses on a full frame body. That concerns me. Everyday snaps, birthdays or whatever look amateurish to me when they have so much DoF. Sure, sometimes there's a reason for it, but more than 50% of the time, you are looking to isolate the subject and unless you're shooting very tight, you can't do it with smaller sensors.

Just my 2c, though.

I find my "walkaround" kit these days to be the 50mm f/1.4 and an 85mm f/1.8. It almost feels like cheating because half decent composition results in "wow" from viewers without any effort using these fast primes on a big sensor...

*Shrug*

But it's not ideal for everyone, obviously.

I don't think your math is quite right there (f/1.4 on m43 is more like f/2.8 on FX, IIRC). Software is getting better and better at mimicking bokeh, but software can only subtract info well. It can't add info back, such as adding DoF. I quickly got over the whole paper-thin bokeh thing when I got into DSLRs and think it has exaggerated usefulness, but I have a totally different shooting style no doubt. By the way, this is a sample pool of 45/1.8 on micro four thirds: http://www.flickr.com/groups/1759398@N21/ I have the lens. It's enough for me. YMMV