Have you tried the u4/3 system out?

[bluey]

[...]People are always complaining about the high ISO performance of these cameras[...]Here's an example ISO 1600 shot (with the 20/1.7; focus was a bit off). Yeah, it's clearly noisy, but come on, it's very far from disastrous

Perfectly good photos.

Have posted some test photos for those interested in micro 4/3 and legacy glass compared to kit zoom lens with no post-processing (full size files downloadable for the curious):
Cat photos - dimly lit room in evening slow shutter speed and motion blur ISO auto/1600
closest focus examples in dim light ISO auto/1600
foliage outdoors overcast/drizzly near and far

Now I remember why I gave up on zoom lenses for fast primes. Compared to 35mm, crop factor is annoying, but compensated by image stabilization and high ISO performance, which I find frankly stunning (coming from color film). Happy to be able to get life out of my OM Zuikos.

 

[Frankie]

I lost all interests in it upon the news of the Fuji X100. [I particularly hate arms' length photography.]

 

[bluey]

[I particularly hate arms' length photography.]

I don't love it either, but with a Panasonic Lumix GHx in SLR style with viewfinder or Olympus Pen with VF-2, you could have both eye-level + alternate viewpoints. It's easier than carrying a stepladder and right angle viewfinder when an arm's length is enough to get a better viewpoint and still be able to see what's in frame.

 

[bluey]

[...]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.[...]

No doubt the company is doing OK. The advantage of the 4/3 and micro 4/3 is that more than one company can make a lens. They key at present is to get an installed base, on which there is the potential demand for the fast primes some of us want. Plus adapters for other mounts mean niche markets can find some joy somewhere.

Does anybody make a 12mm non-fisheye fast wide??

 

[bluey]

[...]I find it hard to believe a print (11x14) from M9 or D3X of a sunny scene is just the same as a u4/3 print of the same scene.[...]

If you can print 11x14 at 300dpi, that is close to 3300x4200pixels or less than 14 megapixels. Looking at images on screen, I'd say there is an obvious difference between digital cameras just like there is an obvious difference between different films, in terms particularly of color rendition.

In the end, people won't see the pixels but will see the color and contrast more obviously - things eyes can see clearly but numbers can't easily compare.

If one took those same images and subjected them to time-consuming post-processing, they could probably be all made to look near enough to the same (unless the test images are printed text, but who wants that anyway).

 

[Dante_Stella]

Ok, Semilog, so the argument in the abstract is that it's a negligible hypothetical difference between µ43 and an NEX in terms of sensor size and performance. Here is how they tested out (2 EVs of dynamic range and about 300 points in high ISO are not exactly trivial):

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/%28appareil1%29/631|0/%28appareil2%29/652|0/%28appareil3%29/614|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Olympus/%28brand2%29/Sony/%28brand3%29/Nikon

The other issue is the crop factor. 2x is a lot bigger than 1.5x for purposes of legacy lenses.

My take is the 4/3, both regular and micro, are going to be under tremendous pressure from Sony, which has a huge APS-C R&D budget and can spread it across NEX, Alpha, and Nikon applications. Sony has decent lenses (at least the basic zoom), legacy adapters (and AF adapters for NEX), an optical finder, and a third-party accessory shoe. If it delivers an electronic viewfinder, what will make any variety of Four-Thirds compelling? And Sony is not the only player in the native APS-C mirrorless space; Samsung has the NX.

I came out of things quite surprised; I was shopping 4/3 platforms for use with a 57/1.2 Hexanon, and had originally dismissed the NEX as another oddball Sony offering. I was surprised that it turned out to be the dark horse contender.

Regards,
Dante

Once again: the vertical difference between micro 4/3 and APS-C is 20% linear (for Sony/Nikon APS-C) or 17% (for Canon APS-C). In practical applications, this is generally not enough to make a significant difference in IQ.

It is the case that Canon and Sony sensor technology is a bit ahead of Panasonic, by perhaps half a generation. But this is an implementation issue, not a sensor size issue, and it only makes a substantial difference at ISO 800 and higher.

If you have an application that demands better IQ than a 4/3 camera can deliver, you pretty much have no choice but to go FF. That means that no APS-C NEX camera is going to do what you want it to, although a hypothetical FF NEX of the future might.

 

[PCB_RF]

Micro-4/3 already pressured 4/3 into submission, I don't think Sony can do much more damage. Olympus may continue with a 4/3 pro platform, but they announced they'll discontinue development of 4/3 cams below the E-5 in favor of m-4/3.

The M-4/3 appeal to me is the blend of compactness, image quality, lens offerings, handling/interface and overall utility. Image quality is already sufficient for my needs, and will improve.

I'll bet m-4/3 image quality will improve markedly before Sony can match the range of native m-4/3 body & lens offerings. And I don't see how NEX will ever be as compact as m-4/3, needing bigger lenses for the bigger sensor.

Less crop is always better than more crop, but I use my 20/1.7 pancake more than any of my dozen+ legacy lenses, and that wouldn't change much for me even with a 1.5x crop.

You also shouldn't discount's Sony's ability to fail to effectively market great technology.

Samsung has a lot of work to do to capture market share with NX mirrorless cams. I liked the body better than I thought I would, but they're not selling in significant numbers. Didn't help that they can't use Leica-M glass. But if Samsung sorts this out and really puts money/people into NX, watch out!

The market will only get more interesting, and I find it fascinating that this new mirrorless niche is being driven by little Oly and the big electronics mfrs. What are NiCan up to? What will their response be? I wonder if we'll see anything at CES...

My take is the 4/3, both regular and micro, are going to be under tremendous pressure from Sony, which has a huge APS-C R&D budget...Sony has decent lenses (at least the basic zoom), legacy adapters (and AF adapters for NEX), an optical finder, and a third-party accessory shoe. If it delivers an electronic viewfinder, what will make any variety of Four-Thirds compelling?

I...had originally dismissed the NEX as another oddball Sony offering. I was surprised that it turned out to be the dark horse contender.

 

[ampguy]

limited sensors for u4/3

limited sensors for u4/3

I don't think Olympus can do much with IQ being reliant on Panasonic or others for sensors. Features and art filters, are about it. Check out the newest EPL1s, which is out in Japan - just another art filter and maybe kit lens change?

u4/3 vendors only have 2 sensors, right? The ~4 year old one used in all u4/3 cameras by Oly and Panasonic, and then the newer GH one, right?

I don't see a roadmap for improved u4/3 technology, the way that I do for the thriving APS-C/FF sensor market, but any bodies that can mount legacy lenses are nice to have, but I personally don't plan to invest in u4/3 glass anytime soon.

When u4/3 systems are < $200 (they fell from $500 to $300 in the past 6 months), I'll consider getting one to play with, as long as the adapters are still readily available and inexpensive.

Micro-4/3 already pressured 4/3 into submission, I don't think Sony can do much more damage. Olympus may continue with a 4/3 pro platform, but they announced they'll discontinue development of 4/3 cams below the E-5 in favor of m-4/3.

The M-4/3 appeal to me is the blend of compactness, image quality, lens offerings, handling/interface and overall utility. Image quality is already sufficient for my needs, and will improve.

I'll bet m-4/3 image quality will improve markedly before Sony can match the range of native m-4/3 body & lens offerings. And I don't see how NEX will ever be as compact as m-4/3, needing bigger lenses for the bigger sensor.

Less crop is always better than more crop, but I use my 20/1.7 pancake more than any of my dozen+ legacy lenses, and that wouldn't change much for me even with a 1.5x crop.

You also shouldn't discount's Sony's ability to fail to effectively market great technology.

Samsung has a lot of work to do to capture market share with NX mirrorless cams. I liked the body better than I thought I would, but they're not selling in significant numbers. Didn't help that they can't use Leica-M glass. But if Samsung sorts this out and really puts money/people into NX, watch out!

The market will only get more interesting, and I find it fascinating that this new mirrorless niche is being driven by little Oly and the big electronics mfrs. What are NiCan up to? What will their response be? I wonder if we'll see anything at CES...

 

[PCB_RF]

Olympus can do with Pana sensors what anybody else can do with outsourced sensors. Whether they choose to do it or not is another story. Doesn't matter whether Oly drives development or not, what matters is progress. Panny is on their 3rd sensor now, and image quality has steadily improved.

3 sensors, 8 bodies (11 by 3/11?), and I don't have time to count the lenses, but more than 12 IIRC. All in, what, 26 months on the market? NEX has 2 near-identical bodies, 1 sensor, 3 or 4 lenses, no EVF and an over-simplified interface, with nearly a year on market.

I'll buy a NEX when a body with usable interface and built-in EVF drops below $200, to use with legacy lenses. But it won't see much use.

I don't think Olympus can do much with IQ being reliant on Panasonic or others for sensors.

u4/3 vendors only have 2 sensors, right? The ~4 year old one used in all u4/3 cameras by Oly and Panasonic, and then the newer GH one, right?

I don't see a roadmap for improved u4/3 technology, the way that I do for the thriving APS-C/FF sensor market...

When u4/3 systems are < $200 (they fell from $500 to $300 in the past 6 months), I'll consider getting one to play with, as long as the adapters are still readily available and inexpensive.

 

[PCB_RF]

Forgot One M4/3 Body & Some Lenses

Forgot One M4/3 Body & Some Lenses

I keep forgetting Panny's GF2 is already shipping in Japan. That makes 9 bodies to market to date. Rumors are saying Oly will have an EPL2 and maybe a pro body, and Panny may have a pro body, so we could be at a dozen bodies to market by summer '11.

And lens count looks like 18 to me between Panny/Oly.

Sony and Samsung have a lot of ground to cover. And I can't lump them together the way I can Oly/Panny, since they don't share lensmounts.

To be clear, I'm a mirrorless fanboy, not a m-4/3 fanboy. I would have loved to love NEX, but I need an EVF and a better interface. Before Sony ever gets there, I'm already knee-deep in m4/3. But I've bailed on systems and lensmounts before, and I'll do it again if something compelling and affodable appears. I'm just not holding my breath.

3 sensors, 8 bodies (11 by 3/11?), and I don't have time to count the lenses, but more than 12 IIRC. All in, what, 26 months on the market? NEX has 2 near-identical bodies, 1 sensor, 3 or 4 lenses, no EVF and an over-simplified interface, with nearly a year on market.

 

[ampguy]

reminds me of the discussions I had with photo friends/hobbyists back in '95 and '96 about APS film - sure, it was "good enough for most usage" and a rumored "pro version" just around the corner ...

Now, of the folks I am still in touch with from those discussions, they're all using FF DSLR's 😉

12 bodies of u4/3 should be enough, it was for APS film: http://www.nicovandijk.net/apscameras.htm

 

[zumbido]

reminds me of the discussions I had with photo friends/hobbyists back in '95 and '96 about APS film - sure, it was "good enough for most usage" and a rumored "pro version" just around the corner ...

Now, of the folks I am still in touch with from those discussions, they're all using FF DSLR's 😉

12 bodies of u4/3 should be enough, it was for APS film: http://www.nicovandijk.net/apscameras.htm

The difference, of course, is that for any usage other than serious sports/birding you can get a consumer M4/3 camera that is better than any consumer 35mm of that era; whereas all the APS setups were much worse in practice than 35mm.

 

[Jason C]

Intersting discussion.

The Oly E-P1 with Panny 20/1.7 has really peaked my interest as an easy to carry candid platform, as to augment my 2 pro body DSLRs. Lugging around the 1Ds (with either a 35/2 or a 50/1.4) at work is a challenge that is not quite inconspicuous, and sometimes a chore.

Having a platform with the essence of an RF but with more flexability and quality than a P&S, would mean more opportunities to capture a moment for me. And I would rather have something with me to capture that moment, than have nothing with me at all .

I will most likely forgo purchasing half of a lens for my DSLRs, and get me an Oly with a Panny 20/1.7.

This is kind of exciting....

Thanks for the discussion.

Jason C

 

[seakayaker1]

My wife has been getting acquainted with the Panasonic G2 kit I got her as an early Christmas gift. It's a step up from her Nikon Coolpix but she's having to rethink how she does low-light shots, using higher ISO, etc. I'm wondering if I should get her the 20mm lens or an M adapter...

A liitle late for a response but . . . . .

fwiw, the 20/1.7 does fantastic in low light situations and would work better than the 'M' adaptor unless your wife wants to shoot manual focus.

And there is the rumor that Panasonic will soon release a 25/1.4 in a micro four thirds mount . . . . .

Life is Grand!

Dan

 

[Jason C]

Is anyone aware of any quality eos-m4/3 adapters? The adapters I've seen so far are so-so. If I get the E-P1, might as well try to use my existing eos glass as a mf supplement.


Jason C

 

[Ronny]

It is working fine with old obj from Leica, Nikon etc

 

[Jason C]

E-P1 with Panny 20/1.7 is on it's way...


Jason C

 

[nightfly]

How much worse in terms of capturing color nuance and subtle color gradations are the current m4/3 and APS-C based mirrorless cams than current DSLR APS-C and even older DSLR Full Frame cameras? I'm just wondering about true image quality of these smaller sensors at low ISO against more professional quality cameras. Are they just good enough? Or if you are discriminating in terms of color and image quality for bigger prints, do they hold up? Is the pixel density still just too much to make beautiful, not plasicty looking prints? Basically is there no substitute for cubic inches as they used to say with muscle cars.

I miss my e-p1 a bit, but I'm going to wait until the next generation of panasonic/olympus models that are more geared towards pro/high amateur use.

The new Panasonic GH2 has pretty startling high ISO performance - looks to be almost as good if not equal to my canon 5d! When they put that sensor in an e-p model or a GF style model, I'll buy one again.

 

[Ronald M]

If you read the thread to here and not get bored, my take on the thing is my Nikon D40 is quite small enough.

You all seem to want a small carry everywhere camera to make family snaps, which is a commendable goal, the issue is 5x4 ratio of the sensor does not translate to the common 4x6 print. Now you have to compose so the long dimension is narrowed without a guide line in the camera or you have to get the ugly prints with the big white borders on the ends. Somehow it kills the camera for me.

 

[Andy Kibber]

If you read the thread to here and not get bored, my take on the thing is my Nikon D40 is quite small enough.

You all seem to want a small carry everywhere camera to make family snaps, which is a commendable goal, the issue is 5x4 ratio of the sensor does not translate to the common 4x6 print. Now you have to compose so the long dimension is narrowed without a guide line in the camera or you have to get the ugly prints with the big white borders on the ends. Somehow it kills the camera for me.

?????

The ratio of the sensor is 4x3, not 5x4. With the Olympus E-P2 (and all other micro 4/3 cameras, I suspect), you can select another aspect ratio, which will be displayed on the screen.

Micro 4/3 cameras are no different from any other format in that there are some standard paper sizes that don't match the aspect ratio. For example, 35mm format doesn't fit 5x7 or 8x10 without cropping.