Have you tried the u4/3 system out?

Have you tried the u4/3 system out?

  • Total voters
    419
  • Poll closed .
I tend to agree that their market is not serious photographers, but the half serious end of the P&S market, which is huge compared to serious photographers that will trade off some IQ and features for size.

If one is going to only purchase 1 camera, and trying to decide against a P&S or compact u4/3, the u4/3 has some significant advantages for the more serious photographers in that crowd. If they are trying to decided between a u4/3 or a DSLR where serious photography is their main concern, the DSLR clearly wins.

Thus I can see why they are not concerned with not offering fast prime lenses. Most of the people that will be concerned with the fast primes will likely be using a DSLR as their primary camera, and if they own a u4/3 it will be used mostly in a secondary capacity for more casual shooting. They typically will choose to invest in the fast primes for their DSLR equipment, and not the u4/3 when owning both.

I'm somewhat typical IMO for those that use higher end equipment for primarily shooting, but want a quality every day carry around camera to sacrifice as little as possible in a small form factor. the u4/3 fills that niche, is far better then the current crop of P&S offerings, and I have the DSLRs and medium format digital with a slew of high end fast primes when I need high end quality (mostly for work, but also some personal use).

I would love to see fast primes for the u4/3 systems, but doubt I'd really purchase more than one. I love the 20mm 1.7 and use it most of the time on the E-P2. I'd prefer something just a little wider, but really only need a single high quality lens for the type of shooting I do with the u4/3 system, and the 20mm seems to work perfectly. I've got a couple legacy lenses to play with, but the 20mm is the workhorse of the u4/3 for my every day carry camera.
 
I also hear some bring up the lack of bokeh and DOF control. I would agree if they are relying on the slow zooms, but thats hardly the case with any of the better lenses. I've had no difficulties with DOF control, and the ability to get shallow DOF is one of the main reasons I got the u4/3 over the G11 I was considering. Granted, its not a shallow as my FF with fast primes, but it is very pleasing with the E-P2 and 20mm 1.7, 50mm 1.5, and in some cases even the 14-42 kit lens.

These are very typical of the results I get from the u4/3 that the G11 would choke on. Shot with the Panasonic 20mm 1.7, and 50mm 1.5 legacy lens.

4781497278_72cfd5496d.jpg


4788995154_af8e03883f.jpg
 
The quality is good enough for me.
If it isn't for someone else, no need to use the system. Why the need to post comparative shots to prove the point. The simple fact is you can use a cheap point and shoot to make a fantastic image.
Part of photography is the final IQ, but an important part is having a camera handy to take the shot. m4/3rds is a very handy system.
Also...
So much focus on the native m4/3rds lenses. A huge part of the attraction of the system is the ability to use just about any lens.
I'm mostly using Leica M glass, as well as recent purchases - a Kodak 16mm movie lens (amazing colours) and an old Alpa Kern Switar Macro (very interesting lens).
 
chrisso said:
The quality is good enough for me.
If it isn't for someone else, no need to use the system. Why the need to post comparative shots to prove the point.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'll tell you why:

When I shoot with Leica, I know how much image quality I'm losing compared to shooting my Hasselblad, and only after knowing it, I can decide when I prefer my Hasselblad and when Leica is enough. I wanted to see the same shot and compare other formats with u4/3, for the same reason: to see what u4/3 is good for... I guess it's good for internet and 4x5 snapshots printing, but most of my photography isn't there... As some posters here rave about its quality and compared it to a D700 image, I asked for examples... It's not about proving anything to anyone else: what would it matter to me and my photography if someone else uses or not any format? It's just about the truth and myself... Why the need to avoid posting comparative shots? It's always been done...

Cheers,

Juan
 
kuzano said:
I have always been a better capitalist than I have a photographer. 45 career years plus in banking and marketing lead one to that result.

Olympus hasn't so much turned to idiocy as they have capitalism. Their decisions for the last decade have been directed more toward the profit model than the "let's really satisfy photographers".

I suspect part of that decision goes way back to the OM-1 to OM-4 era when they failed, due to lack of reliability in the Press Corp market, to penetrate the Professional marketplace.

So, I am inclined to say that Olympus has turned to bottom line development and marketing, rather than cater to a smaller niche marketplace, ie prime lens users. It's possible that those buyers wouldn't spend the required money to offset R&D, marketing and distribution and return a suitable profit. In fact, they are not seeking loyalty, but profits.
Click to expand...

Kuzano, I hear you.

I am not blaming them at all for taking care of the bottom-line (profit line).

What frustrates me is their refusing to recognize/believe that their own marketing strategy is working.

That rumor website is doing a better job generating interest and polling opinions than probably Olympus' own marketing department. Why? because they are listening to what many people want, and they are setting the trend with their polls and relentless rumor processing.

You know this most likely better than I do, that trends *do* sway people's decisions, therefore making it a stronger trend.

As the result: The prime lens fans are no longer a tiny niche thanks partly to these guys' effort.

So I submit that in the long run, it will hurt Olympus if they went the other way and only being concerned with securing their immediate base-line while failing to capitalize on the trend.
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
I wanted to see the same shot and compare other formats with u4/3, for the same reason: to see what u4/3 is good for... I guess it's good for internet and 4x5 snapshots printing, but most of my photography isn't there...
Click to expand...

And you were going to compare IQ by looking at shots on the internet?

I doubt m4/3rds matches Hasselblad and Leica M, but as I said, baseline IQ is just one component of what's makes a great image. If it's a very important component in your work, then it's probably not the system for you. Which is perfectly understandable.
 
Juan,

I understand your desire to see the same photo taken taken with various formats. I'm not going to bother doing that though. :)

However, if you want, I'll send you a raw file, jpeg, and/or tiff from my e-p2 and you can print it on your own. Just send me a pm if you want a photo to experiment with.

I used to print 8x10s photos from my nikon d70 and I was happy with those. The e-p2 files are better and I'm even happier with my 8x10s from it.
 
Last edited:
The Tektronix Phaser IIsdx dye sublimation printer was about the best color printer that I've ever used. 300 pixels per inch, letter sized prints. Looked like a photographic print. My EP2 would not have a problem driving it.
 
chrisso said:
And you were going to compare IQ by looking at shots on the internet?
Click to expand...

Of course! If the test is well done and details (crops) are provided or good resolution files are posted, internet is enough to clearly see differences... Some times I've also lab printed tests I've downloaded...

Cheers,

Juan
 
david.elliott said:
Juan,

I understand your desire to see the same photo taken taken with various formats. I'm not going to bother doing that though. :)

However, if you want, I'll send you a raw file, jpeg, and/or tiff from my e-p2 and you can print it on your own. Just send me a pm if you want a photo to experiment with.

I used to print 8x10s photos from my nikon d70 and I was happy with those. The e-p2 files are better and I'm even happier with my 8x10s from it.
Click to expand...

Hi Elliott, if you have the same image from D700 and u4/3 I am interested, thanks... By the way, the D70 made horrible tone files even then, near a decade ago, when it came out as an amateur camera... I asked for both images just because someone compared u4/3 quality to that of the D700 on this thread... I was surprised about the best sensor made by Nikon being in the same level of small cheap cameras with a sensor one fourth its size... Yet I'm curious and of course I'd like to discover u4/3 has amazing image quality, especially if we talk about tone and skin... Who wants a D700 if a tiny u4/3 camera can do the same or near the same? I would imagine u4/3 means less IQ than film, less IQ than FF, and less IQ than APS-C, but instead of words, I preferred to ask for comparative images: I like to see what gear can do on prints, not on brochures, magazines, specifications or people's imagination or words. That why we've always compared with the same shot...

Cheers,

Juan
 
I agree with you Juan, in that I like to compare results for myself as well. The end use is what matters most, and if its prints for you, there is nothing like looking at physical examples from each. One persons viewpoint of IQ may not equal anothers, and only personal observation could reconcile that for each individual.

I used to have a series of images on the wall in my studio. All 11x14's. One was shot with a 6mp digital DSLR, another from a 16mp DSLR, one shot on 35mm E-6 chrome. I would ask people which images were taken with which camera. Over time it was obvious that people couldn't accurately pick the film from the digital, nor the high end digital from the low end digital. If they needed 11x14's, there was no advantage to shooting film, or 6MP versus 12MP. The end visual result was the same.

I feel the same with the u4/3 format. For the most common print sizes I use (up to 11x14), or editorial usage (two page spread), there is little difference between using the u4/3 or my DSLR based on IQ alone. I could easily shoot an editorial spread on the u4/3 and the results would look great on paper. I typically wouldn't, but not because of IQ. In fact, the two images I posted above would reproduce just as good as if shot on my FF DSLR or medium format digital, as the printing process and maximum size are the limiting factors.

It all depends on the end use on how appropriate or sufficient the IQ is to the photographer, and that's totally an individual choice.
 
sfaust said:
I used to have a series of images on the wall in my studio. All 11x14's. One was shot with a 6mp digital DSLR, another from a 16mp DSLR, one shot on 35mm E-6 chrome. I would ask people which images were taken with which camera. Over time it was obvious that people couldn't accurately pick the film from the digital, nor the high end digital from the low end digital. If they needed 11x14's, there was no advantage to shooting film, or 6MP versus 12MP. The end visual result was the same.

I feel the same with the u4/3 format. For the most common print sizes I use (up to 11x14), or editorial usage (two page spread), there is little difference between using the u4/3 or my DSLR based on IQ alone.
Click to expand...

All those fools (pro shooters) using film or DSLRs instead of u4/3... Why are they so blind? If 99% pro shots are printed below double-page size, why do you think ALL pros get cameras with a format different to u4/3?

It's not about megapixels: it's about sensor size... A smaller sensor produces images with inferior tonal range... A more plastic visual feeling... The colors are less and less real because their transitions are less accurate...

Again, a well used film camera and a well used DSLR prints of the same image, would be very interesting to me side by side with a well used u4/3 print of the same image. Or the three files... This is not a literature forum... We're talking about reality and real photographs and real gear with real limits and real differences.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Hi Elliott, if you have the same image from D700 and u4/3 I am interested, thanks... By the way, the D70 made horrible tone files even then, near a decade ago, when it came out as an amateur camera... I asked for both images just because someone compared u4/3 quality to that of the D700 on this thread... I was surprised about the best sensor made by Nikon being in the same level of small cheap cameras with a sensor one fourth its size... Yet I'm curious and of course I'd like to discover u4/3 has amazing image quality, especially if we talk about tone and skin... Who wants a D700 if a tiny u4/3 camera can do the same or near the same? I would imagine u4/3 means less IQ than film, less IQ than FF, and less IQ than APS-C, but instead of words, I preferred to ask for comparative images: I like to see what gear can do on prints, not on brochures, magazines, specifications or people's imagination or words. That why we've always compared with the same shot...

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

I dont have a d700 or I'd help you out. :p

Cant help you with tone and skin either. I use my e-p2 for macro photos. The offer stands regardless though.
 
fdigital said:
Yep Will, last time I checked on the 43rumors website the polls showed 500 people who didn't like olympus's announced lenses as opposed to 50 people who did.

To make the point a little clearer, I'm going to list slow telephoto zooms available for m4/3s below:

- Olympus 40-150mm f4-5.6
- Olympus 75-300mm f4.8-6.7
- Olympus 14-150mm f4-5.6
- Panasonic 14-140mm f4-5.8
- Panasonic 45-200mm f4-5.6

Now lets compare the list of available AF primes that aren't a fisheye or macro:
- Olympus 17mm f2.8
- Panasonic 20mm f1.7 (the saving grace of the system so far IMO)

So there's a 40mm equivalent lens which is great quality, and a 35mm equivalent lens of average quality, as well as being slow (and infuriatingly) no smaller than the faster panasonic.

The very thing that makes m4/3 so great is that it's small and easy and fast. The panasonic 20mm f1.7 holds to that promise, and they sold them faster than they could make them. MAKE MORE LENSES LIKE THAT!!!
Click to expand...

My problem with the m4/3 system is this - the digital lens selection is pretty much geared toward the beginner seeking super zooms and all in one solutions. Those of us coming from DSLR / 35mm systems rather than point & shoot backgrounds crave fast lenses and primes - and it appears to Olympus/Panasonic that there aren't enough of us buying into the m4/3 system otherwise they would make more primes.

Using 35mm MF lenses on a GF-1 / EP-2 just isn't a great experience for me. I'd rather continue to use my OM-1n and scan negatives than to use a crappy LCD/EVF with a sh*tty refresh rate and resolution.

I do have access to the EPL-1 and GF-1, and while they're great cameras for people who want a little more from a compact point & shoot, they're really just a bridge camera to DSLRs for me. At least, right now anyway.
 
david.elliott said:
I'll see if I can set something up for you once the weather gets cooler. :)
Click to expand...

Great! And maybe you or some other member know a link to a film - u4/3 test with the same shots... Thanks! (Maybe it's been already done lots of times, so you wouldn't have to use your time on it...)

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
All those fools (pro shooters) using film or DSLRs instead of u4/3... Why are they so blind? If 99% pro shots are printed below double-page size, why do you think ALL pros get cameras with a format different to u4/3?

It's not about megapixels: it's about sensor size... A smaller sensor produces images with inferior tonal range... A more plastic visual feeling... The colors are less and less real because their transitions are less accurate...

Again, a well used film camera and a well used DSLR prints of the same image, would be very interesting to me side by side with a well used u4/3 print of the same image. Or the three files... This is not a literature forum... We're talking about reality and real photographs and real gear with real limits and real differences.

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

Juan,

Using the same logic, if it is really *all* about image quality, why didn't all pro photographers use 8x10 film, or 100Mpixel medium format digital back?

That's correct, because even though those cameras will yield better quality images, they are not practical to use for most situations.

A lot of us choose the 4/3rd system because they allow us to shoot with almost rangefinder-like feeling or style. The form factor does not intimidate or raise suspicion unlike DLSR's with their big lenses.

Now let's talk about quality.

If I were to show you a 11x14 inches *daylight* landscape print from my Olympus E-P2, side by side with the same scene from my wife's Canon 5D. I don't think you'd be able to tell which one is which.

But if I show you similarly sized prints of ISO 3200 images from the two cameras, you will be able to tell instantly.

So the question is, how often do you print that big from 3200 ISO files? If the answer is: very often, then stay away from m4/3rd. If the answer is: practically never, then you owe it to yourself to check it out.

Fair enough? :)
 
Agreed, although Juan should probably decide for himself.

Another aspect for me is the price and flexibility of m4/3rds.
One could easily carry a full M9 set-up, with a m4/3rds body and m adapter.
Then you have the best quality, plus a reasonably priced, inconspicuous camera you can mount the same lenses on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom