Can a micro4/3 camera be a DLSR replacement?

[andreios]

I'm toying with the idea of replacing my a bit obsolete eos10D with something newer and lighter/smaller - as I find myself using film cameras more and more I do not need such a big thing but still I'd like to keep "something digital" in the house.
My main main requirement is that the new digital thing shall be able to be manually operated - focusing and exposure setting.

I am wavering between the idea of purchasing a Panasonic G1 or a Nikon D80. While the Panasonic being a smaller and lighter solution, I am attracted with the possibility of using manual focus nikon lenses on both analogue and digital body. (Or could one be happy even with something like an LX-3? )

Does anybody have same problems? Could the Panasonic G1 be an adequate replacement for a proper DSLR? What is your amateur-ish digital solution?
Thanks for suggestions

 

[user237428934]

I don't understand the alternatives. G1 or D80?? If you stay with a DSLR then switching to Nikon sounds not like a good idea.

But the answer to your main question is: it depends.

I did the same. Thought that my Canon DSLR was too bulky and other stupid things. Bought a G1 and played with it for a while. This is a nice camera but only for good light. For me it's a really bad available light camera. The electronic viewfinder is only good in daylight. So if you are a daylight shooter there is a good chance that you will be happy.
Another thing I didn't like is the fact that you can't really play with DOF (depth of field) with a m4/3 sensor. I'm back with a DSLR and prime lenses. Will keep the Panasonic in case I need something small again. And in 2 years my daughter will be old enough for it.

 

[spkennedy3000]

I am going to go for a sony NEX-5.
Bigger sensor than micro 4/3, nice shiny lenses, mmm.

 

[Ronald M]

For family pics etc, something digital could be 4/3.

for 4x6 or 3 1/2 x 5 small prints. the sensor is the wrong ratio I believe. What happens is printes cut a strip of the top and bottom to make common print sizes.

Some offer a digital print which is 4/3 with a border on the short edges to make it 4x6.

I find this a poor choice of format. You may be different.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I replaced my DSLR with m4/3 and am very, very happy with it. Focusing manual lenses is terrific...I completely disagree about focusing in low light, as well...the EVF is superb indoors, in my experience. IQ is more than good enough. I've got the E-P2, but the G1 is a fine choice as well. I recommend Olympus Pen lenses for adapted use.

 

[user237428934]

For family pics etc, something digital could be 4/3.

for 4x6 or 3 1/2 x 5 small prints. the sensor is the wrong ratio I believe. What happens is printes cut a strip of the top and bottom to make common print sizes.

Some offer a digital print which is 4/3 with a border on the short edges to make it 4x6.

I find this a poor choice of format. You may be different.

You can switch the Panasonics to 3:2 Format. You even see the new format in the electronic viewfinder or on the screen. I didn't like the 3:4 too.

 

[Frank Petronio]

Gee i shot a lot with a G1 and think it is great camera, the noise and high ISO performance is similar to a Nikon D80. The reason I went back to a larger DSLR was more the ergonomics -- I have XXL hands -- but even now I miss that large electronic view finder, I think it is better than an optical finder myself, I like the option of seeing all the information in the view finder and then being able to turn it all off -- better than the Nikon/Canon optical finders. I never had a problem with smearing, it will if you pan quickly but so what? Really, the G1 finder is better than the DX-smaller sensor SLR finders IMHO.

My G1 ISO 1600 stuff is very noisy but I like the looks... at the lower 200-400 ISO I used the results for professional print applications just like I would a D80 or D200 level camera.

Not that you should judge from online jpgs but here is a low ISO G1 shot:

and a high ISO one:

I do favor the G1 color "out of the box" over Canon-Nikon color. For $500 used a G1 is a heck of a value, get the 20/1.7 and 14-45 lenses, a spare battery or two and call it "done".

Of course there are newer cameras in the works but Pany got the G1 more right than most other camera makers. Heck I think it is better than the later models they developed. They just should have made one that giant American hands could use more comfortably. But I think even the D70-80-90s are too small as well, I like the larger D200-300 size cameras.

 

[splitimageview]

The G1 or Oly EVF are great in low light, far better than an optical VF because they can compensate for low ambient light. They also are huge and show 100% of the view; Frank is right, dinky DX viewfinders can't compare, as they are, well, dinky.

 

[PCB_RF]

There already are a lot of opinions, I'm sure there will be many more.

IME, the only thing m4/3 does much less well than DSLR is sports or action shots. EVF refresh rate isn't fast enough to view the subject during shutter bursts.

Secondly, current APS-sized sensors have better high ISO performance, from one or two stops (D90, T2i) to a thousand stops (D3S).

So if lots of sports photos or cleanest-possible-without-pp high ISO shots matter a lot to you, m4/3 won't be a good DSLR substitute.

Everything else m4/3 does as well or better. EVF is better in low light, easier to focus and use mf lenses, much wider legacy lens choice, previsualization of exposure comp/wb settings, fits in smaller bags, etc.

 

[gavinlg]

Yeah it can be a great DSLR replacement, with certain limitations. Less DOF control, slightly worse high ISO noise compared to GOOD current APSC dslrs (better than d200 etc). With the faster lenses they have no problems focusing in bad light.

 

[JoeV]

The G1 is a good available light camera with the Lumix 20mm-f/1.7 lens attached, or a fast prime (<f/2) manually focussed, adapted legacy lens, up to about ISO800 in color, and up to around ISO1200-1600 in B/W. The EVF is a great aid in low light.

Also don't forget about the new firmware v.1.5 for the G1 body that makes the onboard flash very usable and reliable now for fill-flash; and the v.1.1 update for the 20-1.7 lens that fixes the hunting AF in dim light.

~Joe

 

[seakayaker1]

For my needs the GF1 easily replaced the need for a DLSR . . . . .


Night shot with no flash/autofocus. . . .

DMC-GF1 - LUMIX G 20/F1.7 - ISO 400 - f/1.7 - 1/30 - 20mm



Bright afternoon sun/no viewfinder/manual focus

GF1 with Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 -- ISO 100 -- f/2.8 -- 1/1000 -- 50mm



Midday sun/no viewfinder/manual focus

GF1 with Carl Zeiss Contax G 45mm f/2 -- ISO 100 - f/2 -- 1/2500 -- 45mm



Bright afternoon sun/no viewfinder/manual focus

GF1 with Carl Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/2.8 -- ISO 125 -- f/2.8 -- f/2000 -- 35mm


I have picked up a few of the Panasonic lenses to go along with a few Voigtlander and a few Zeiss lens.


I am having fun and the four/thirds format works well for my needs!

Good luck with your decision . . . . .

Life is Grand!

Dan
~

 

[andreios]

Thank for all your responses so far, it seems that for most the G1 fits the bill.. I`ve handled the G1 in a store, but perhaps I`ll try to rent it and try shooting w/ the camera.
(But perhaps the most simple solution would be just to upgrade my 10D for 20 od 30D - which would not make the kit smaller and/or lighter but might solve all those small things that are annoying me on my current DSLR).

 

[cny3123]

You may want to consider waiting around for the NEX 3 and 5 to hit the market as well. They are close to the same price new as a used G1, GF-1, EP-2 etc.. if not cheaper sometimes.

 

[Babylon]

As for the LX3, better forget it. I just sold mine because I was very dissapointed with the poor quality of the images. Don't believe the propaganda about this camera, it is very noisy and full of artifacts. Good only for pictures with strong lighting, landscapes at high noon and so. Much better a Ricoh, I had the GX100, sold it and regretted.

I have heard that Nikon is preparing a 4/3. Definitely that format is the future.

 

[filmtwit]

I've had the Lumix GR1 Micro 4/3rds and still have my Canon 50d. I'd take the 50D any day of the week.

Lumix: With any older lenses attached, it was very badly balanced and using it hand held while running focus was stomach turning.
With the Lunix lens, it was fine, but also limted. While I did run my M-mounts and some C-mounts on it, the nearly 2x effect on the lenses made some of them useless and with the wider angle C-mounts, I lost infinity. What was nice at times was that you could program different aspect ratios. That was actually really nice.

The Lumix GR1 wasn't a bad camera, but it wasn't for me. It was also useless for my large collection of Canon primes and L-series zooms. I'm glad to have kept the Canon, despite it size.

 

[fotomeow]

I bought an EP-1 and returned it in 2 weeks. Although the concept, size, and menu was impressive, I felt that the IQ wasnt good enough to be a keeper. I wanted a digicam that I could put RF glass on: Leica, Zeiss, CV. there are issues with the RF glass not hitting the sensor the same way the Oly 4/3s lenses do, so the IQ of the RF glass was not as good as what I saw on film ...... I got a RD1s and am 10X happier. The APS-c sensor is great and works well with RF glass. The higher ISO on the M43s cameras suffer as well.
In any case, 4/3s may be ok for family/vacation snappies. But anything else, I would go for a smaller dSLR. The Canon Rebel dSLRs arent that much bigger, but the IQ is much better IMO.

 

[PCB_RF]

You will never lack choices!

An Epson RD-1 has better image quality with Leica/RF lenses under 50mm than m4/3. But m4/3 gives you much more accurate focus and framing with lenses longer than 50mm. And the RD-1 has no AF. It has no framelines for lenses longer than 90/135mm(?? I forget which). You can't put a 200/2.8 Canon FD mf lens you bought for $75 on the RD-1 and shoot video of your child's school band concert. You can do all of this on an Olympus Pen or Panny GF1/GH1/G2/G10 (not G1 for video...).

A D50 or T2i will give you better IQ, especially at higher ISO, but is it better enough to justify the larger size and higher cost (if you factor in EF counterparts to much cheaper legacy mf lenses, which are more easily usable on m4/3)?

You have to figure out which format best fits your needs. I don't use many sub-35mm mf lenses on m4/3, I find the 17/2.8, 20/1.7, 9-18 and 14-45 lenses cover most of those needs for me. But I do use longer/faster mf lenses, like 35/1.8, 50/1.2, 135/2.0, etc. I sold my R-D1 because I stopped using it after trying m4/3, and I could lose my LX3 and not miss it.

 

[NickTrop]

A D50 or T2i will give you better IQ, especially at higher ISO, but is it better enough to justify the larger size
________

I vote "Yes". I don't get this fascination with this race to make the smallest interchangeable camera. Reminds me of the megapixel race. If it's small enough not to be a nuisance to carry so that you actually use it, as the smaller DSLRs are and the EVILs are, why would you want to sacrifice IQ - at all? - this is especially true of low light capabilities. All of these cameras are too large to put in a pocket.

 

[thepeople]

i jump from canon dslr to pen, noise and bad kit lens is the only problem with me.
when i use old prime lens with obviously bigger aperture, the m4/3 satisfied my needs.