NickTrop
Veteran
DSLR vs Micro Four Thirds: head to head review
http://www.photoradar.com/reviews/b...rds-head-to-head-review?page=0,0&t=1271256662
Concurs with what I've said all along, albeit more politely. Micro Four Thirds? Keep'em. No advantage at all over compact DSLRs...
Handling
1. "There are distinct advantages in the D5000’s comparative chunkiness, in that it feels much more comfortable and natural in the hand. Combine this with the way the camera locks into your face when using the viewfinder and camera shake becomes much less of a problem..."
IQ
2. Pretty much no contest if you read the review... Detail/Definition, metering, dynamic range, "image pop"...
Verdict
3. No contest - compact DSLR, in this case the now discontinued Nikon D5000. There is negligible advantage in terms of "pocketability" or weight when both cameras have their zooms attached. Article cites that the larger Nikon body actually handles better (due to the grip) than the Panny. The only timethe 4/3 has an advantage in this are is if you have its pancake lens attached. In my case I bought the body only and keep the smaller 35/1.8 attached, which is smaller than the Panny zoom, extended. In every other aspect - most importantly IQ, the compact with its larger sensor wins hands down.
Don't fall for the hype of these cameras. They offer nothing in terms of handle-ability over compact DSLRs. Key tools are "lopped off" like a VF typically, and made to be pricey ala carte add-ons. You're short-changed on the most expensive component, the sensor. The only advantage they offer is not for the consumer, rather the camera companies who presumably have higher margins on these cameras due to presumably lower production costs and the added accessory revenue stream. If I took my D5000, lopped off the VF, lopped off the flash, and substantially decreased the sensor, would I have purchased it? No.
http://www.photoradar.com/reviews/b...rds-head-to-head-review?page=0,0&t=1271256662
Concurs with what I've said all along, albeit more politely. Micro Four Thirds? Keep'em. No advantage at all over compact DSLRs...
Handling
1. "There are distinct advantages in the D5000’s comparative chunkiness, in that it feels much more comfortable and natural in the hand. Combine this with the way the camera locks into your face when using the viewfinder and camera shake becomes much less of a problem..."
IQ
2. Pretty much no contest if you read the review... Detail/Definition, metering, dynamic range, "image pop"...
Verdict
3. No contest - compact DSLR, in this case the now discontinued Nikon D5000. There is negligible advantage in terms of "pocketability" or weight when both cameras have their zooms attached. Article cites that the larger Nikon body actually handles better (due to the grip) than the Panny. The only timethe 4/3 has an advantage in this are is if you have its pancake lens attached. In my case I bought the body only and keep the smaller 35/1.8 attached, which is smaller than the Panny zoom, extended. In every other aspect - most importantly IQ, the compact with its larger sensor wins hands down.
Don't fall for the hype of these cameras. They offer nothing in terms of handle-ability over compact DSLRs. Key tools are "lopped off" like a VF typically, and made to be pricey ala carte add-ons. You're short-changed on the most expensive component, the sensor. The only advantage they offer is not for the consumer, rather the camera companies who presumably have higher margins on these cameras due to presumably lower production costs and the added accessory revenue stream. If I took my D5000, lopped off the VF, lopped off the flash, and substantially decreased the sensor, would I have purchased it? No.