New mirrorless camera for hiking Considering Panasonic GX7- Sony A6000 - Olympus?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

Dave - you can translate any x-y-z (linear coordinate system) translation into a spherical coordinate system, so either implementation should be able to work equally well for any type of camera movement.

---

It might be detectable and definable by spherical co-ordinates, but I wasn't sure how a circular lens was going to rotate rays passing through it (about its own axis)?
It needs to do this in order to perform the necessary counter-rotation if the camera (and image sensor) plus lens barrel rotates during the exposure.

e.g. if you rotate a simple telescope or magnifying glass, the image doesn't rotate - or am I missing something?


A daft after-thought;
I guess lens axis rotational blur I am talking about mainly occurs because people have a habit of 'stabbing' the shutter button, which moves in an axis that encourages camera and lens rotation and particularly with a DSLR, where their other hand is likely to be around the lens barrel. It occurs to me that if the shutter button actuated directly toward the centre of the lens axis, the movement imparted by 'stabbing' the shutter button would be mostly x-y resolvable and better correctable by in-lens stabilisation.

I did say it was a daft thought :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Humphries

It might be detectable and definable by spherical co-ordinates, but I wasn't sure how a circular lens was going to rotate rays passing through it (about its own axis)?
It needs to do this in order to perform the necessary counter-rotation if the camera (and image sensor) plus lens barrel rotates during the exposure.

e.g. if you rotate a simple telescope or magnifying glass, the image doesn't rotate - or am I missing something?


A daft after-thought;
I guess lens axis rotational blur I am talking about mainly occurs because people have a habit of 'stabbing' the shutter button, which moves in an axis that encourages camera and lens rotation and particularly with a DSLR, where their other hand is likely to be around the lens barrel. It occurs to me that if the shutter button actuated directly toward the centre of the lens axis, the movement imparted by 'stabbing' the shutter button would be mostly x-y resolvable and better correctable by in-lens stabilisation.

I did say it was a daft thought :)

---

Dave - most camera motions are multi-planar. The shutter jerk example you give will be a combination of roll (through the lenses optical axis and will as a pitch motion. I can't see any reason why in-lens stabilization would not be able to compensate for this type of motion.

I remember reading a white paper that Canon put out on IS and the approach made a lot of sense. I suspect that at the time this implementation was easier, which is why Nikon and Canon (and Panasonic in their high end video cameras) went with the floating optical element design. I remember some of the initial IBIS seemed more like a marketing approach (i.e. you can use any of your old lenses) rather than an effective approach. Technology advances and what started out as a stop or two improvement (my original Nikkor 80-400mm lens was Nikon's first VR lens and they claimed about 2-1/2 stop improvement).

Daft thought - the is no such animal. Daft answer, well that is quite something quite different.

I find that a lot of people are comfortable in understanding how these things work when mapped to a standard Cartesian coordinate system, but have issues when dealing with spherical or cylindrical coordinate systems. Motions in any of these systems are mathematically mapable to the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dje

Hi teigus

I have a D610 and recently bought an a6000 for travel. This Dropbox link takes you to a raw file from each camera taken of the same scene. Different lenses were used of course so a comparison of sharpness is not terribly useful. It should give an idea of noise though, with both images taken at ISO100.

For these shots, the D610 had a 24-85 lens and the a6000 had a 16-50 kit lens.

So far, I'm quite happy with the a6000 for it's intended purpose. And as Dan says, it's cheap at the moment as there is a new model just released (a6300)

Dave

---

Thank you for the files :)

I have the Olympus OMD EM5 which uses the same technology as the EM10. I own a lot of cameras, including Nikon, Canon, Fujifilm and Sony in addition to two Olympus mirrorless cameras. Among all these, the Olympus EM5 has the best, lowest noise, sharpest images with the 'kit' lenses. I expected the Fujifilm XM1 to be the sharpest because it does not use an antialiasing filter, but in side by side comparisons, the Oly wins. I often use Nikon or Olympus OM System lenses on the EM5 with appropriate adapters. The Oly lenses, even older ones, are slightly better than the Nikon lenses of the same vintage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iconoscope

I have the Olympus OMD EM5 which uses the same technology as the EM10. I own a lot of cameras, including Nikon, Canon, Fujifilm and Sony in addition to two Olympus mirrorless cameras. Among all these, the Olympus EM5 has the best, lowest noise, sharpest images with the 'kit' lenses. I expected the Fujifilm XM1 to be the sharpest because it does not use an antialiasing filter, but in side by side comparisons, the Oly wins. I often use Nikon or Olympus OM System lenses on the EM5 with appropriate adapters. The Oly lenses, even older ones, are slightly better than the Nikon lenses of the same vintage.

---

You're going to have to back that very unusual statement up with some examples including 100% crops, full EXIF data, access to the raw files and your methods of shooting or its nothing more than (at its very best) anecdotal.

Good point, Robin! But that exceeds my level of interest!

Have you tried the Olympus against a Sony A6000? Since you said you had a lot off cameras.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Humphries

It might be detectable and definable by spherical co-ordinates, but I wasn't sure how a circular lens was going to rotate rays passing through it (about its own axis)?
It needs to do this in order to perform the necessary counter-rotation if the camera (and image sensor) plus lens barrel rotates during the exposure.

e.g. if you rotate a simple telescope or magnifying glass, the image doesn't rotate - or am I missing something?


A daft after-thought;
I guess lens axis rotational blur I am talking about mainly occurs because people have a habit of 'stabbing' the shutter button, which moves in an axis that encourages camera and lens rotation and particularly with a DSLR, where their other hand is likely to be around the lens barrel. It occurs to me that if the shutter button actuated directly toward the centre of the lens axis, the movement imparted by 'stabbing' the shutter button would be mostly x-y resolvable and better correctable by in-lens stabilisation.

I did say it was a daft thought :)

---

What you are saying is true in terms of lens rotation, the image won't move with a pure rotating lens but in this case the sensor would also be rotating so there would be no difference relative to the lens but there would be relative to the subject.

To use your magnifying glass example, you would be rotating your head and the glass simultaneously while the subject remained still. Eventually you would be looking at a magnified subject upside down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saorsa

What you are saying is true in terms of lens rotation, the image won't move with a pure rotating lens but in this case the sensor would also be rotating so there would be no difference relative to the lens but there would be relative to the subject.

To use your magnifying glass example, you would be rotating your head and the glass simultaneously while the subject remained still. Eventually you would be looking at a magnified subject upside down.

---

The discussion was actually aimed at cameras with in-lens stabilization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iconoscope

I have the Olympus OMD EM5 which uses the same technology as the EM10. I own a lot of cameras, including Nikon, Canon, Fujifilm and Sony in addition to two Olympus mirrorless cameras. Among all these, the Olympus EM5 has the best, lowest noise, sharpest images with the 'kit' lenses. I expected the Fujifilm XM1 to be the sharpest because it does not use an antialiasing filter, but in side by side comparisons, the Oly wins. I often use Nikon or Olympus OM System lenses on the EM5 with appropriate adapters. The Oly lenses, even older ones, are slightly better than the Nikon lenses of the same vintage.

---

This statement is so generic that is essentially devoid of any useful information relative to camera equipment. It tells us something about the author, but little about equipment. This is comparable to saying I've owned Chevrolet, VW, Nissan, and Toyota automobiles in the past but the Ford that I'm currently driving is faster than all of them.

I think I have nailed it down to to brands now , so progress have been made. I think i will go with the fuji x-t10 og the Olympus om 5mark 2. I looked at some raw files and the Fuji files looks a little better, not sure if its just me or i am wrong.
The fuji has some colors that I am not completly used to, guess its their style and sensor. So would love to hear about what people think if i have to choose between does two?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teigas

I think I have nailed it down to to brands now , so progress have been made. I think i will go with the fuji x-t10 og the Olympus om 5mark 2. I looked at some raw files and the Fuji files looks a little better, not sure if its just me or i am wrong.
The fuji has some colors that I am not completly used to, guess its their style and sensor. So would love to hear about what people think if i have to choose between does two?

---

Both companies make good gear. Have you actually gone to a camera store and tried either of these cameras? If not, I suggest you do so as ergonomics and personal preferences in the way the camera is set up and operates may make the final choice rather obvious.

This is how I ended up going with Panasonic rather than Olympus when I went through something similar a couple of years ago. I just did not like the way the Olympus models felt in my hands and found the menu system rather confused.

I've heard the same type of stories about the FujiFilm cameras (and this seems to vary by model, in some cases), some people really take to them and others can't figure out why anyone would want one.