S
sfaust
Guest
I will only use the multi-point in a sports situation along with AF tracking on the DSLR, but that's about it. Everything else is center point only. I hate second guessing what the camera will do 😱
Can a micro4/3 camera be a DLSR replacement?
- Thread starter andreios
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 118
- Views 17K
I will only use the multi-point in a sports situation along with AF tracking on the DSLR, but that's about it. Everything else is center point only. I hate second guessing what the camera will do 😱
ampguy
Veteran
well...
well...
I can fit my film Pen in 1/4 the space of the EP1, and it's 22MP (according to Dante Stella). Why would anyone go with the EP1, when probably in the same bag, they could put a large sensor M8 or D40 with prime?
well...
I can fit my film Pen in 1/4 the space of the EP1, and it's 22MP (according to Dante Stella). Why would anyone go with the EP1, when probably in the same bag, they could put a large sensor M8 or D40 with prime?
IMO, it's all about compromise. Why would anyone want to use a P&S when a crop DSLR is so much better. Why would anyone want to shoot a crop camera when they can go full frame. Why would anyone want to shoot FF 35mm when medium format offers so much more IQ. Why would anyone want to shoot MF when ……
Its not so much a race to build the smallest interchangeable camera as it is to provide the highest image quality is a small form factor for everyday use. Ideally, I'd love to have the image quality I get from my 1DsMkIII and L glass put in my iPhone camera, but that's unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future 🙁
Instead I need to pick the best compromise between image quality and form factor that suits my use. It was the G series from Canon that I used for daily carry and those photography opportunities that were unplanned yet warranted better image quality than my iPhone camera could provide.
With the m4/3, that bar has been raised with regard to high ISO performance, DOF control, overall image quality, as well as the option to use interchangeable lenses, legacy glass, optical or electronic viewfinders, etc. The m4/3 is head and shoulders above almost all P&S cameras, and still small enough to carry in a briefcase, small waist pack, jacket pocket (with pancake lens), or just carry on a wrist strap. Perfect for when photography is on the sideline to everyday life, but the photographer wants something of substance available for the opportunities that undoubtedly arise.
I can fit the E-P1, and 35mm equivalents of 40mm 1.7, 150mm 2.5, 28-84mm 3.5/5.6, three batteries, a 40mm viewfinder, and three memory cards in a waist pouch that can't even hold my 1DsMkIII body, let alone even the smaller DSLRs (see packed waist pack below!). Thats a lot of firepower in such a small package. I've foregone image making in the past when the only option was to carry a DSLR and lens on my shoulder all day, but I'd easily go all day long with the m4/3 full kit described above in a small bag on my waist. I feel so en'LIGHTENED' 🙂 (bad pun I know 🙂 )
While I'd rather not give up IQ at all, I'm also not going to carry around my DSLR outfit just in case those photo opportunities arise. So I either accept a hit on quality with a P&S, carry around my huge shoulder bag, or forgo the images altogether. The m4/3 is just a small bump up in size over a P&S, but a huge leap in image quality over the everyday P&S.
A compromise long overdue! And I'll gladly keep moving up as the IQ increases and the form factor reduces. If they can fit it on a chip and drop it in my iPhone, so much the better! 🙂
Count me in!!!
S
sfaust
Guest
LIke I said, compromises….
The M8 is larger, heavier, cost 10 times as much, is missing HD video, no AF, no image stabilization, and so on. Those features are more important to me than the larger sensor on the M8, since I have an even larger sensor on the 1DsMkIIl when I need that level of performance. And the D40 is huge compared to the E-P1, and with more compromises as well.
For social photography I need something small with good quality and high ISO performance for those situations. The E-P1 allows me to shoot at ISO 1600 handheld at very low shutter speeds because of the stabilization. I can get sharp results at 1/5th consistently. Coupled with ISO 1600 and 3200 when needed, and 1.4 and 1.7 lenses, it blows away the P&S I was using.
There are also situations where video is more purposeful than a still, and I don't want to have to carry a video camera also (my wife's car accident, recording audio with stills for reference, etc).
And when out and about, if I see a subject that I'd like to capture, I want to do so with the best image quality my compromises will allow. So yes, I do need to make compromises so that I am not lugging around a high end DSLR or RF and lenses, a quality 3 CCD video camera, a Niagra audio recorder, and all the paraphernalia needed to run them.
The m4/3 is one compromise that appeals to a lot of people that are in similar situations. Its a pretty darn good 'everything but the kitchen sink' device thats really small enough to carry daily.
Pen and film? Well, I shot film for 30 years and I'm more than happy to move on and leave the chemicals and dark rooms behind. And if I feel nostalgic, I still have my 4x5, lenses, and film holders (haven't been able to part with them yet), and can rent a dark room. I miss it at times, but then I get over it pretty quickly 😉
I can't see why anyone would shoot 35mm film when a 4x5 chrome is something to behold! How many megapixels are in a 4x5 anyway 🙂
The M8 is larger, heavier, cost 10 times as much, is missing HD video, no AF, no image stabilization, and so on. Those features are more important to me than the larger sensor on the M8, since I have an even larger sensor on the 1DsMkIIl when I need that level of performance. And the D40 is huge compared to the E-P1, and with more compromises as well.
For social photography I need something small with good quality and high ISO performance for those situations. The E-P1 allows me to shoot at ISO 1600 handheld at very low shutter speeds because of the stabilization. I can get sharp results at 1/5th consistently. Coupled with ISO 1600 and 3200 when needed, and 1.4 and 1.7 lenses, it blows away the P&S I was using.
There are also situations where video is more purposeful than a still, and I don't want to have to carry a video camera also (my wife's car accident, recording audio with stills for reference, etc).
And when out and about, if I see a subject that I'd like to capture, I want to do so with the best image quality my compromises will allow. So yes, I do need to make compromises so that I am not lugging around a high end DSLR or RF and lenses, a quality 3 CCD video camera, a Niagra audio recorder, and all the paraphernalia needed to run them.
The m4/3 is one compromise that appeals to a lot of people that are in similar situations. Its a pretty darn good 'everything but the kitchen sink' device thats really small enough to carry daily.
Pen and film? Well, I shot film for 30 years and I'm more than happy to move on and leave the chemicals and dark rooms behind. And if I feel nostalgic, I still have my 4x5, lenses, and film holders (haven't been able to part with them yet), and can rent a dark room. I miss it at times, but then I get over it pretty quickly 😉
I can't see why anyone would shoot 35mm film when a 4x5 chrome is something to behold! How many megapixels are in a 4x5 anyway 🙂
Last edited by a moderator:
campbellcj
Established
Thanks! That is pretty much what I have concluded works best. I do that sometimes with DSLRs when I'm using single-point AF, except for situations where the camera is locked-down on a tripod.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
I actually got the advice not long ago and it works better in some cases. But the shadows don't really take care of themselves in pixels. The tonal range of digital is nowhere near that of film. I just need to accept that and move on. But thanks for the tip, anyway.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Oh, Stephan! All those on-point, cogent points you make before you blunder and stumble with this! 35mm is the perfect compromise in the film world - cheap, readily available, cameras small enough to carry about with you everyday, shooting handheld and sometimes almost un-noticed (I'm talking rangefinders here, of course..), with some of the very best cameras ever made. I have a Hexar AF that outperforms my E-P2, is auto-exposure programmable, auto focus, and SILENT.
I'm with you on compromise and using the tools that we have available to get the job done, but do NOT denigrate the 35mm film format. Shame!
S
sfaust
Guest
I know, I was just poking fun at a 'no-compromising image quality' viewpoint! It doesn't stop at 35mm, 4x5, or even 8x10. There is always another holy grail just beyond. When I shot 4x5 and 8x10 for clients, not matter how often I shot it, I was always awestruck at the image quality on those huge chromes. Still blows me away today.
While I prefer medium format film, I would never knock 35mm except in jest. Kind of like the Porsche owner ribbing the Corvette driver on his choice, all the while both knowing they would be very happy with either 😉
I walk away in shame.... 🙂
dfatty
Well-known
very well said, stephen, and beautiful photos you've been posting with the e-p1.
cosmonaut
Well-known
For me, no. The m4/3rd just doesn't cut it for me for an everyday landscape camera. But I love my EP-1 for a street camera.
P
Pico
Guest
The Lumix G1 has DOF preview.
S
sfaust
Guest
The E-P1 has this also. And while the m4/3 doesn't have the same DOF characteristics as a DSLR, its far better than a P&S. If you use a fast lens such as the 20mm 1.7, or LTM or M lenses in the f1.x to f2.0 range, you can get nice shallow DOF in the images.
Using the 50mm 1.5 and 75mm 2.5 (35mm equiv of 100mm f1.5 and 150mm f2.5), I can soften up the background or foreground just as easily as I can on FF or film camera since I can use a wider aperture to help make up the difference. Ie, where I might shoot with a 150mm f4 on FF to get the depth of field I want, I can open up the 75mm to 2.5 to help make up whats lost due to the smaller sensor size, and get the same feel in the image.
I find that if I use an lens with an equivalent focal length, and use an aperture about 1 - 2 stops wider than I would on FF, I get a very similar look. So when I would normally shoot at say f4 or f5.6 on FF I'll use 2.0 or 2.8 on the E-P1 and the DOF characteristics are about the same. This does discount the kit lenses since most are 3.5 or slower. But with the LTM and M mount lenses I'm pretty happy with the DOF control I'm able to get, and its one of the reasons why I gave up my much loved G10 and went with the m4/3 format.
Last edited by a moderator:
spiderfrank
just a dreamer
if the f-number of your lens is x, you have the same dof of a 2x lens on FF. Micro 4/3 asks for fast lenses
S
sfaust
Guest
If I remember correctly, the 20mm at 2.0 (40mm equiv) has more DOF on he m4/3 than the 40mm at 2.0 on my FF DSLR. Are you saying they should render the same DOF?
gcogger
Newbie
No, a 20mm lens at f/2 on the micro 4/3 camera has the same DOF as a 40mm lens at f/4 on the full frame camera.
S
sfaust
Guest
Thanks, that's what I thought.
Last edited by a moderator:
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Since I was an English Literature major in college, I'll have to take your word for it, but it doesn't seem to make sense to me. Isn't the cropping effect unrelated to depth of field? I'm hoping someone will do a "DoF in M43 Cameras for Dummies" book soon.
Does this mean that my legacy 50/1.5 lens is really a 100/3.0 lens to my shiny new Pen? (I get the 100 part, but what about aperture?) My brain hurts!
Does this mean that my legacy 50/1.5 lens is really a 100/3.0 lens to my shiny new Pen? (I get the 100 part, but what about aperture?) My brain hurts!
Mcary
Well-known
Yup pretty much so according to the http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
M4/3 50mm 1.4
Subject distance 10 ft
Depth of field Near limit 9.75 ft Far limit 10.3 ft Total 0.51 ft In front of subject 0.25 ft (49%) Behind subject 0.26 ft (51%)
35mm Body 100 F 2.8
Subject distance 10 ft
Depth of field Near limit 9.76 ft Far limit 10.3 ft Total 0.5 ft In front of subject 0.24 ft (49%) Behind subject 0.26 ft (51%)
While a 100mm F 2.8 on a 35mm body gives you
david.elliott
Well-known
Eeek.
Your 50/1.5 is still a 50/1.5. The aperture is still 1.5 - that does not change. Your are cropped because the sensor is half size so you have a 2x crop giving you the same perspective as if you were using a 100mm lens rather than a 50mm lens.
kshapero
South Florida Man
I would buy an Oly E620 with 14-52 and 50-200 lens kit refurb for $449 and get small size and more versatility. I'm just saying.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Yeah, David. I guess that is common sense about the aperture.. the DoF I will take as an article of faith, and I guess that using hyper-focusing with my legacy lenses means that I'll need a DoF app on my iPod or a slide rule. Eeek, indeed.