Have you tried the u4/3 system out?

Have you tried the u4/3 system out?

  • Total voters
    419
  • Poll closed .
yeah

yeah

But that 20/1.7 lens is about $400, or as much as an M-mount CV lens, or Rokkor 40/2, and 1/2 a Cron 35. If you have other M-mount bodies, is it really worth getting a dedicated 40ish FOV lens just for the AF and that body?

fdigital said:
I've used an e-p1 and liked it.

Once they release some f1.4 and faster native lenses I'll buy into it bigger. The best thing about m4/3 is the ability to have tiny superfast lenses that make up for the differences in sensor size. I want a 17mm f1.4, a 25mm f1.2 and a 12mm f1.8. If they made those I'd buy each one + a panasonic and olympus body.

Panasonic looks to have the right idea with lens speeds, olympus is kidding themselves. The 17mm f2.8 is the same size as the panasonic 20mm f1.7 and is optically worse. It doesn't make sense. If it had been a 17mm f2 it would have been so much better.
Click to expand...
 
I have an EP1, its an ok camera, nice for throwing in the bag for high quality snaps. My wife uses it more than I do now for just snaps and what not.

Originally I got the camera in hopes that it would be a digital option for my M lenses, it wasn't. So I bit the bullet and got an M8 instead.

The wife wants to get the 20mm f1.7 panasonic thing, she doesnt like zoom lenses, and likes 50's with big apertures....I taught her well :D
 
Last edited:
I actually wanted to buy a u3/4 to make a street photography project but ended with a Canon instead... The video from the u3/4 are not enough good and I wanted to also do some pro work with it... Finally, I love it... Ability to use Zeiss lenses.... The sensor is big... Even if it is 20% bigger... It make the difference in the DOF and the noise ratio... Now I have a "cheap" camera that have the DOF of the film Super35mm ! Yay!

But I must say that I would like to have a small killer to make some more stealth shots... Pany or Pen? That is the question...
 
JohnnyT said:
I actually wanted to buy a u3/4 to make a street photography project but ended with a Canon instead... The video from the u3/4 are not enough good and I wanted to also do some pro work with it... Finally, I love it... Ability to use Zeiss lenses.... The sensor is big... Even if it is 20% bigger... It make the difference in the DOF and the noise ratio...
Click to expand...

Re. low light performance:

The pixel pitch on the Canon 7D is 4.3 µm -- identical to the 4/3 format Pentax G1, which also has a pixel size of 4.3 µm.

What this in turn tells us is that Panasonic is lagging Sony and Canon by about half a generation in sensor tech. This is probably due largely to gapless microlens tech, which Sony and Canon have deployed in their latest sensors. The next generation of Panasonic sensors (and thus Pana and Oly 4/3 and µ4/3 cameras) is also supposed to contain next-generation microlens technology. I assume that the newer Samsung sensors will, as well.
 
I just got an E-30 with the 14-54mm 2.8/3.5ii as my first DSLR, until now I only used film.

It is more than good enough for the purpose I bought it for. I would have liked micro four thirds, smaller etc, but the lack of an optical VF was a dealbreaker for me.

Just for the record my ideal camera would be a digital Konica Hexar af. Imagine a
Leica X1 with a viewfinder like the Hexar af.

Guess I will have to hurry and order a Razzle dog.
We are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants.
 
My brother had a GF-1, I never really got the hang of it, although now he's replaced it with a Sony NEX, and for all the stick it gets for the user interface, I find it easier than the GF-1, especially if you shoot Aperture Priority, which we both do.
 
I started shooting digital with a Canon 30D but found a Canon G10 more useful to me for general shooting and the quality was more than acceptable, excellent at lower ISOs. Along comes Fourthirds, small in physical size with a sensor bigger than the G10 and a lens mount standard that could adapt wide ranges and brands of lenses. What was there not to like? I've been using an E-P1 and, so far, it is working out nicely.
 
My needs for the micro 4/3 were simply to have a compact camera to augment my DSLR for the times I don't want to carry it but still want quality images. It works perfectly for that.

I have the E-P2 / EVF and mainly use it with the Pannasonic 20mm 1.7 in manual focus with the AF/AL button used to pre-set the focus as needed. It works great in this configuration and very responsive. I like the ability to use the EVF and physically longer lenses when size isn't an issue, but then remove the EVF and put the pancake 20mm 1.7 on for a very compact setup.

The quality is more than adequate for up to 8x10 and 11x14 images. I wouldn't use it professionally, since I do shoot images that are occasionally are used on billboards, huge posters, etc, and its just not setup for that environment. But for most of my personal shooting its more than adequate.

I'm not sure where the 'enormously long focal lengths' comment comes from. The 35mm equivalent of 14mm and up doesn't seem long to me.

willie_901 said:
The image quality with my G1 and Lumix 20/1.7 is fine. The kit zoom lens is nice too, but it is very slow. The increased DOF is both a blessing and a curse. If you are really into subject isolation, I doubt you will enjoy micro-4/3. One exception is close ups. But when the subject is 6-8 feet away, isolation suffers. Also all the inherent perspective distortion issues with wide-angle-of-view lenses are more annoying with the smaller format sensor. In Lightroom the LUMIX lens correction data tables correct barrel/pin cushion distortion quite nicely and CA is also well controlled.
Click to expand...

I find that shallow depth of field is easily controllable if fast lenses are used. I get very nice results when I use the 20mm 1.7 wide open, and have posted several results of non-closeup images with very pleasing DOF. I also use some legacy lenses, such as a 50mm 1.5 and 75mm 2.5 and also get nice soft backgrounds when shooting wide open and full length portraits. The key is the fast aperture since as soon as you start approaching f2.8 and beyond, the DOF starts getting pretty deep. One wide angles, even if past, shallow depth of field its beyond the 4/3 sensors capability (unless someone comes out with a f0.5 wide angle :).

willie_901 said:
In my mind the LUMIX G1 with a 20/1.7 is essentially a 21st century Canonet QL-17... and that's how I use this camera.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I was looking for when I went to replace my Canon G10. I think you summed it up perfectly!
 
ampguy said:
But that 20/1.7 lens is about $400, or as much as an M-mount CV lens, or Rokkor 40/2, and 1/2 a Cron 35. If you have other M-mount bodies, is it really worth getting a dedicated 40ish FOV lens just for the AF and that body?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. The corrected image quality is excellent and manual focusing is so wonderfully accurate and fast. The lens size and weight provide value as well.

Micro 4/3 really is a system. M lenses obviously work and many people happily use them on Micro 4/3 bodies. But I found non-system lenses to be inconvenient and often the IQ suffers at 20 mm M focal lengths. The physics behind the loss of edge sharpness at short M focal lengths is discussed at length at in all the dedicated micro-4/3 forums.
 
Last edited:
Bought the GF1 with the Panasonic 20/1.7 back in March and love the versatility of having a camera that fit in a coat pocket, great for street photography, and low light. The Panasonic Lumix 7-14/4 along with the Leica D 14-50/3.8-5.6 four/thirds lens are two great AF lens that compliment the 20/1.7.

I have also purchased a number of MF lenses since then on the used market and a few new ones along the way. Picked up four Leitz lens, 50/2 (1951); 35/3.5 (1953); 90/4 (1954); and 135/4.5 (1960) and have captured some great shots with them on the GF1.

The Voigtlander 40/1.4 (M); 50/1.5 (LTM); & 75/2.5 (LTM) are wonderful lens and deliver a lot of bang for the money spent for them.

The Contax G Zeiss 45/2 & 90/2.8 are incredibly sharp lens and produce great photos.

As someone who uses photography as a hobby and enjoyment the 4/3rds delivers a lot of bang for the buck and a ton of fun.

I enjoy the photos displayed here on this forum and over at GETdpi.com micro 4/3rd sections. It does appear that a lot of people who use them are enjoying their experiences.

When the time comes and I move on to something else, I will sell of the equipment. Whatever the difference between what I paid and what I recapture is the money spend on having a good time. It is going to be some time before I am ready to move on . . . . .

. . . . . thank goodness there are choices, we all can be happy!

Life is Grand!

Dan
~ ;)
 
JohnnyT said:
I actually wanted to buy a u3/4 to make a street photography project but ended with a Canon instead... The video from the u3/4 are not enough good...
Click to expand...

First, read this.

Then, watch this.

Then, you are permitted to weep.

(Nota bene: I am not trying to say in these posts that 4/3 cameras are so fantastically great. I am trying to point out that the differences between 4/3 and APS-C are much, much smaller than many people think.)
 
Last edited:
huh?

huh?

links appear to be the same.

semilog said:
First, read this.

Then, watch this.

Then, you are permitted to weep.

(Nota bene: I am not trying to say in these posts that 4/3 cameras are so fantastically great. I am trying to point out that the differences between 4/3 and APS-C are much, much smaller than many people think.)
Click to expand...
 
I really like my E-PL1 as my out-and-about camera. Don't have the EVF yet, but hope to get one soon.
 

Attachments

  • Horned Tree.jpg
    Horned Tree.jpg
    79.7 KB · Views: 0
I bought into the m4/3 system because I wanted a compact, lightweight kit for travel. The more I use it, the more I like it. The native Lumix lenses are superb, and I also have the option of using all of my old 35mm lenses.

This shot was taken last weekend with my Lumix G1 and Micro-Nikkor 200mm f4 ai.

--Warren

orig.jpg
 
voted "yes, but it didn't meet my needs". The use of leica lenses did sound promising, the crop factor of 2 made it useless for me. After the first enthusiasm I was disappointed more and more by the awful low light performance.
Right now between full frame dslr and film rangefinder there is no place for something else.
 
Warren, why does your photo display full size and mine only displays as a thumbnail?
I sized it at 600x600 pixels (since it is square) as per instructions. What am I doing wrong.?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom