-ph- Posted April 17, 2017 Share #41 Posted April 17, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have a question, probably a stupid one. Presumably the 90mm Summicron AA will be better on an M240 cropped to 200mm than the best 200mm (FF equivalent) on a MFT, and also the M 135mm Apo-Telyt will be better cropped to 300mm than the best 300mm (FF equivalent) on a MFT. What makes you think that is the case? The M240 first of all would need an 80 MP sensor to get equivalent results cropped, and then there is the question, which lens has the better resolution - the recent mFT lenses are amazing in this respect. So at which FF equivalent focal length do you get better results from MFT compared to a cropped M 135mm Apo-Telyt? Basically everything significantly beyond 135mm. (all this ignoring AF, IBIS, size etc). AF can be very nice, IBIS can make quite a difference for image quality, depending on the situation. Peter Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 17, 2017 Posted April 17, 2017 Hi -ph-, Take a look here What's so good about M10?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
IkarusJohn Posted April 26, 2017 Share #42 Posted April 26, 2017 (edited) well, the GH5 EVF is at least as good as the much-lauded SL one, and that camera made some M users switch platform..."... at least as good ..."? GH5 evf - 3.66mpixels SL evf - 4.4mpixels Perhaps "almost as good" might be more accurate. Edit - GX8 evf - 2.36mpixel oled A7 evf - 2.4mpixel oled Visoflex 020 - 2.4mpixels X1D - 2.36mpixels Edited April 26, 2017 by IkarusJohn Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 26, 2017 Share #43 Posted April 26, 2017 3.66 MP OLED is pretty good, compared to LCD. Even the GX8 comes close to the SL - yes, I have tried them side by side. As always, it is not just about resolution. Refresh rate, contrast ratio, etc. are more important. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted April 26, 2017 Share #44 Posted April 26, 2017 All true, but the facts do paint a somewhat different picture. I agree refresh rate is probably more important than pixels, but the SL refresh rate seems to match the quality of the image. As a person who defended the EVF2 released with the M(240) against the evidence, I take your comments with more than a grain of salt. I should add that the relevance of the comparison is of passing relevance at best - I see little point in comparing mFT with 35mm, unless your interest is primarily video. What is refreshing about the M10 is that it is an updated rangefinder camera, which has always been about stills photography. The M10 keeps that function up to date, and technologically as good as it can be, for its purpose. I don't agree that removing a feature that was offered only on the M(240) was a retrograde step - there was much about the M(240) that was retrograde ... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 26, 2017 Share #45 Posted April 26, 2017 I didn't "defend it". I called it "adequate for purpose" and "probably the best at the time the camera was designed" and I stand by those words. The M10 EVF will be hammered in the forum towards the end of the production run. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted April 26, 2017 Share #46 Posted April 26, 2017 Oh no, Jaap. You're much too modest! You defended it far more vigorously than that! And here you go again playing fast and loose with the facts. The EVF2 was panned from the start; reinforced when Olympus' EVF4 wouldn't work with the M(240) processor. We didn't need to wait for the end of the production run for the EVF2 to be "hammered", despite your enthusiasm for it. Just another one of your little tricks, eh Jaap? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 26, 2017 Share #47 Posted April 26, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) No - it was - and is- an EVF that works just fine within its restrictions, and you are twisting the facts. Direct me to a post with a "vigorous defense"... The critique of the thing did indeed start after the EVF4 came out. Just wait until an EVF comes out that performs better than the M10 one, which already drew comments for being behind the SL. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted April 26, 2017 Share #48 Posted April 26, 2017 Well, take your post here - looks like defense to me. Vigorous? Looks like that too! Twisting the facts? I don't think so. Hoist and petard, methinks ... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 26, 2017 Share #49 Posted April 26, 2017 We appear to be operating on different levels of vigour. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 27, 2017 Share #50 Posted April 27, 2017 We have derailed this thread pretty successfully by now. I will split it and move it into the digital forum. Here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/271863-wildlife-long-lenses-and-sensor-format/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebf Posted April 27, 2017 Share #51 Posted April 27, 2017 What so good about M10 that it can motivate me to buy it? Without video capability. Let me hear from users with experience with both M (240) and M10. How do they compare? Everything about it. It's such a major upgrade compared to my M-P 240... Better color rendition, better ISO, the ISO dial, the screen, the button layout, the size... it's awesome. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.