OMD E-M5 vs. Fuji X-E1 vs. Sony Nex7 vs. Nikon 1 V2

PB_PM

Just curious.. why are you wanting a 90 prime ? seems like an odd Focal length for a dx system.. (no one makes one!)

Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro?

heartyfisher

Just curious.. why are you wanting a 90 prime ? seems like an odd Focal length for a dx system.. (no one makes one!)

Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro?

Not a dx lense :-) .. He wants a 150mm equivalent and only the Sigma has one for FX.. a very rare Focal length that he wants no? so thats why i was curious...

aquarian_light

Because a 135-150mm equiv is what I use for head shots. with a 90mm equiv you've got to get to close and things start losing proportion.
And for the record... none of the fuji lenses are "dx." They're their own breed. Fuji can really do what ever they want with them. Does anybody make a 60 macro prime for DX? does anyone make a 56mm or a 27mm prime for dx? nope, but Fuji makes em in an X mount tho. So why not a 90mm(135 equiv) prime? Theres a 135mm prime for full frame. Remember this system has to serve as an emergency backup should my 800 crap. and without a medium tele portrait lens it can't do that. Case in point, the Zuiko 75mm Prime makes a 150mm equiv. PERFECT. Now if only the OMD produced better images akin to the Fuji bodies.

TaoTeJared

@aquarian_light - I think your over generalizations of lens focal lengths and comparing them to the cheapest of garbage out there will not serve you well when looking at theses systems. A $700 prime is a great lens and Olympus, Panasonic (Leica series) and Fuji have shown that their lenses are top notch. Olympus and Fuji have always been known for their Glass as being top notch. You should not think of these as 3rd party systems.

Variable zooms are not high on my list either. Nikon's 70-300vr is a great lens - especially when you consider the cost. You should try it. That said, I wouldn't want the 55-200 for portraits.

150mm is a bit of an odd desire for a portrait lens. It seemed rather limiting to me when I tried it at a store. Most reviewers have said the same thing, great lens, bad (limiting) focal length. As others said, No one makes a 150 portrait - you are a bit unique in that desire. I have to admit, I have never seen a 150mm lens for 35mm format before - only medium format systems. You can't really be angry with companies for not making one. I do use 105-135mm on my 70-200 for some things, so I know where you are coming from. If that is what you use and it fits your style so well, you can't move off of it, then really you only have one option. The reason why Oly made it was to finely get a lens with some good bokeh on it. The DOF on it is closer to a 85mm (a bit shallower actually.)

I personally prefer 85-105 for portraits, and it will be hard to stay away from the system when the 56mm 1.4 comes out. I wouldn't mind a a 70mm f/2 either. Looking at images from the 60mm, since it is a macro, there isn't any real distortion if that is your focus. You can compensate for the 2.8's bokeh by moving much closer than usual though.

90mm FX is a classic macro focal length that goes back a few decades, so the 60mm macro is not odd. The 56mm is a 84mm for that is the normal portrait lens and is not odd either. Really, after this year, Fuji would have built up the classical rangefinder lens line up along with the 3-zoom range. I doubt we will ever see a pro 2.8 level zooms.

aquarian_light

Tao, I think you're slightly missing my point. 135-150 is my dream zone for focal length. When I'm doing portraits with my D800, my 70-200 stays between 135 and 150. At least when I'm doing anything 1/3 or tighter body crops. (which I find myself doing that crop a lot) And the point being the longest Fuji has at the moment for it's X series is a 60mm Macro. (90 equiv) which for my style is annoyingly just barely too short. 90 is great for half body crops, but when I move cloer to frame for a 1/3 or 1/4 body crop perspective starts giving me big noses and small ears. At which point I need a equiv 135+mm. The only forseeable future Fuji lens that will cover this focal length for me is the 55-200, which I've already explained why I've not got my hopes up for it. Me and vari-aperture zooms don't get along well lol

TaoTeJared

I understand where you like shooting at. I'm just saying that since no one has ever made a 150 equiv lens, don't hold your breath for one. I could maybe see a 135mm, but those haven't been made in mass for a couple decades now and are really not high on people's lists.

You must shoot from quite a ways away. I guess I feel (or the people I shoot feel) comfortable being closer to my subject. I suppose I don't see the same issues as you do with the perspective, I only see that with wide angles. But to each their own.

No matter what your preferences are, I'm not sure if any of the mirrorless systems should be expected to replace DSLRs. I think those expectations are a bit high at this point. You may be stuck at "Good enough" for quite some time.

Fuji's IQ, viewfinder, most lenses - Oly's lens line up (but fuji will be caught up this year), focusing and weather sealing - with Panasonic's video - Sony's focus peaking - and you would have the greatest Frankenstein mirrorless system.

heartyfisher

Fuji's IQ, viewfinder, most lenses - Oly's lens line up (but fuji will be caught up this year), focusing and weather sealing - with Panasonic's video - Sony's focus peaking - and you would have the greatest Frankenstein mirrorless system.

LOL !
"I see by your eagerness, and the wonder and hope which your eyes express, my friend .. . .. That cannot be.” : Mary Shelley, Frankenstein

adamz

@tao - You forgot to mention, full Nikon F support

@aquarian - I guess You missing the point with Fuji cameras, they are not created as DSLR's replacements. the main market for this cameras are street & travel photogs. who needs light and reliable system. OTOH m4/3 is a complete system for any kind of photogs, from casual, through travel to sports ones. it has excellent zuiko 75/1.8 lens (150mm on fx), exceptional 60mm/2.8 macro (120mm on fx) - both professional grade lenses. so still don't get why are You so desperately focused on Fuji? is it better? IMHO, not significantly - there's 2 point difference between x100 and omd, difference that You can't see in real life. and You have full set of lenses including third party ones and a mature and well thought system.

Msmoto

@ heartyfisher
The 90mm focal length is one from the old days. Leica has several, one on eBay a 90mm f/2 Summicron costs about $2,000....
Also, Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP A/M 1:1 Macro

But, in most cases it seems the 85mm has become more popular...
oh, I have a 90mm Super Angulon from Schneider (for the old folks...LOL)

Godless

Just curious.. why are you wanting a 90 prime ? seems like an odd Focal length for a dx system.. (no one makes one!)

90*1,5=135mm, that´s why. i bet one is in the plans as the system grows.

heartyfisher

Just curious.. why are you wanting a 90 prime ? seems like an odd Focal length for a dx system.. (no one makes one!)

90*1,5=135mm, that´s why. i bet one is in the plans as the system grows.

Ok makes sense now. Thanks!

Gab

Just curious.. why are you wanting a 90 prime ? seems like an odd Focal length for a dx system.. (no one makes one!)

90*1,5=135mm, that´s why. i bet one is in the plans as the system grows.

I honestly doubt it. Most ppl are fine with their 85mm (127.5mm eq)lenses on their DX cameras :-)

aquarian_light

@tao - You forgot to mention, full Nikon F support

@aquarian - I guess You missing the point with Fuji cameras, they are not created as DSLR's replacements. the main market for this cameras are street & travel photogs. who needs light and reliable system. OTOH m4/3 is a complete system for any kind of photogs, from casual, through travel to sports ones. it has excellent zuiko 75/1.8 lens (150mm on fx), exceptional 60mm/2.8 macro (120mm on fx) - both professional grade lenses. so still don't get why are You so desperately focused on Fuji? is it better? IMHO, not significantly - there's 2 point difference between x100 and omd, difference that You can't see in real life. and You have full set of lenses including third party ones and a mature and well thought system.

Because I've seen images off both and I prefer the tonality and color of the Fuji. It's warmer and more natural. And not that I'm jumping on the bandwagon, but the OMD sensor is uncomfortably small. That and I read the JPG engine in the Fuji is superior at retaining detail, partly because it has no AA filter. The Images feel more crisp and lively. The photo-sites are larger than the OMD's which means a few things. Better high ISO performance, less noise, and more forgiving of lens defects.

TaoTeJared

@tao - You forgot to mention, full Nikon F support

Oh I gave up on that a long time ago. At one point I wanted to get other brand MF lenses and adapters, then I started learning about the mount sizes and more importantly flange depth. I no longer waste idle thoughts on that topic anymore. A odd looking Nikon F with a huge protruding bulge in the back is what would be needed, or have a 50mm stick out in-front by 3 inches.

I love Fuji's sensors. Fuji has always done sensors right and have been in the top for detail etc. They just finely made another interchangeable system!

There is something about the m4/3 sensors that just strike me odd about the color, size or something - I can never put my finger on it but something never feels quite natural about it.

Benji2505

anybody here having experiences with the combinations of nex-7 and Leica M lenses?

TaoTeJared

Nope but if you haven't before check out Steve Huff's site
There are a bunch of shooters that use leica and nex-7 combos the post articles and he has done various comparisons with the leica glass on nex, leica, oly etc.

Benji2505

Thanks for the tip, will check it out.

aquarian_light

I love Fuji's sensors. Fuji has always done sensors right and have been in the top for detail etc. They just finely made another interchangeable system!

There is something about the m4/3 sensors that just strike me odd about the color, size or something - I can never put my finger on it but something never feels quite natural about it.

See, he gets it. Fuji images just.... feel better. Fuji just has that.... something. But it doesn't have a frickin tele lens!!

PB_PM

Fuji images "feel" better if you like the look of Fuji film. Since I'm used to Kodak colour film, I prefer the "Nikon" look.

heartyfisher

Looks like there is a new option with the expected new mirrorless Nikon. It will likely be able to use a normal Nikkor lense with an attachment.

aquarian_light

Fuji images "feel" better if you like the look of Fuji film. Since I'm used to Kodak colour film, I prefer the "Nikon" look.

With the right software you can give any camera any look if it's got 14 bit or more colors to work with. But point being that the Fuji just seems more... true to life right out of the camera... is the best way to put it. I've downloaded OMD files, they can be made to look better, but that's just something I'd have to do to every image on import.

Looks like there is a new option with the expected new mirrorless Nikon. It will likely be able to use a normal Nikkor lense with an attachment.

I'm not countin on it lol I'm not entirely sure that Nikon would want to compete with itself. It's already got the 1 series. Why would Nikon make you not want to buy a 1-V2 or 1-V1 and buy their other mirrorless. But that's neither here nor there right now.

heartyfisher

I think it makes sense to me. Nikon is competing with the other manufacturers here like the Sony Nex, fuji XE1

aquarian_light

I think it makes sense to me. Nikon is competing with the other manufacturers here like the Sony Nex, fuji XE1

But they already are in competition.
http://shop.nikonusa.com/store/nikonusa/en_US/pd/ThemeID.18145600/productID.259443900
Given, it's cheaper... but having a $750 Mirrorless and a $1000 or $1100 Mirrorless with a few more features with the same miserable lenses doesn't make any sense. ESPECIALLY since that camera came out 3 MONTHS ago.

adamz

have You ever tried the lenses from Nikon 1 aquarian or are You just saying this based on Your thoughts. IMHO, the biggest problem with Nikon 1 system are the potential clients who never played with the cameras and are judging the system based on personal assumptions.

PB_PM

@adamz that is dead on. The Nikon 1 cameras are good, for what they are. They make no attempt to be a DSLR, that much is for sure. Sensor performance, UI and control issues aside, I think they offer a lot of potential, far more than some of the other mirror-less systems out there. If nothing else, Nikon learned that it is possible to create a high performance interchangeable lens camera in a small package.