Have you tried the u4/3 system out?

Have you tried the u4/3 system out?

  • Total voters
    419
  • Poll closed .
Hi Ronald

Hi Ronald

I have the D40x, a great camera, but the NEX trumps it with an even better sensor.

If a 4/3 sensor does 3:2 it's just cropping, making the usable portion of the sensor even smaller than native mode, except for one, that is optimized for 16:9.

However, if small non-cropped out of camera are what you want, Walgreens on-line (and maybe others) have a 4x5.3 so you can print what you shot with these new fangled 4:3 cameras.

Ronald M said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
nightfly said:
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.
Click to expand...
When Mrs. Jason C gets a new bouquet of flowers, I'll do a controlled test between the E-P1 and a Canon 1Ds at similar FF settings. I snapped a quick comparison today, but was not controlled.

I'm going through todays output, and from what I've seen with the RAW files is pleasing; better than expected but still no prosumer DSLR.

I will use the Oly a lot...

Jason C
 
nightfly said:
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.
Click to expand...

m4/3 flat out isn't as good as full frame 35mm digital sensors, but it's a decent compromise as far as size and cost and ease of use go.

At low ISO, there is not much difference - they're pretty noise free, rather high resolution and the colors are generally good. They fall short in highlight headroom so you must make sure you underexpose to save highlights. Tonal subtleties are way better than normal point and shoots, but not quite FF level.

At high ISO, they're capable, but not even close the full frame digital. Noisey shadows and highlight clipping early means the 35mm digital is a much better (un)available light tool. There are ways to get around this though - for instance the voigtlander 25mm f0.95 on an e-px means a super fast lens that has sensor stabilization, meaning you can shoot at a lower ISO than a normal DSLR.
 
My wife is happy with the blue Panasonic G2 I got her for Christmas, and the files look very good. I think they compare as well to a full-frame sensor camera as half-frame film compares to full-frame film... That is, comparable to a point, up to mid-size enlargements.

And, similarly, while my old Canon G3 is surprisingly good at small enlargement sizes, her Panasonic µ4/3 is far better. I still prefer the look of medium format... :)
 
fdigital said:
m4/3 flat out isn't as good as full frame 35mm digital sensors, but it's a decent compromise as far as size and cost and ease of use go.

At low ISO, there is not much difference - they're pretty noise free, rather high resolution and the colors are generally good. They fall short in highlight headroom so you must make sure you underexpose to save highlights. Tonal subtleties are way better than normal point and shoots, but not quite FF level.

At high ISO, they're capable, but not even close the full frame digital. Noisey shadows and highlight clipping early means the 35mm digital is a much better (un)available light tool. There are ways to get around this though - for instance the voigtlander 25mm f0.95 on an e-px means a super fast lens that has sensor stabilization, meaning you can shoot at a lower ISO than a normal DSLR.
Click to expand...

I don't know, Gavin. In real life uses, I never see my E-P2 as a compromise. I see it as a full-fledged digital camera which hold its own when it comes to quality any way I sliced and diced it.

Plus its build quality (not mentioned often enough) is up there along with "pro-cameras" as far as withstanding abuses.
 
Hy!

I sell my prof Nikon gear, to change m43. I'm a street photographer in Budapest.

Now I use two bodies. E-pl1, Gf2.
Lens: 14/2.5, 20/1.7, Voigtlander: 40/1.4, 90/3.5, Zeiss: 28/2.8, 50/2

I'm satisfied with the result. This equipment is light (even if i have it all with me) and this is very important to me. Now to me, this system is very good, but not perfect yet. I think in the future it will be better (see GH2 sensor).

See, my blog how i use this system :) Most of the pictures, take with M43

www.28mili.blogspot.com

Tom
 
shadowfox said:
I don't know, Gavin. In real life uses, I never see my E-P2 as a compromise. I see it as a full-fledged digital camera which hold its own when it comes to quality any way I sliced and diced it.

Plus its build quality (not mentioned often enough) is up there along with "pro-cameras" as far as withstanding abuses.
Click to expand...

I agree, they stand on their own merit as far as a good compromise goes. They're minuscule compared to a camera like the 5d - especially when you take lens size into account, and the IQ is still fantastic for most things.

I don't think they're anywhere near as well built as even mid level DSLR's (let alone pro DSRLs) though. My e-p1's bottom plate bent completely out of shape from one tripod use, and left a gap of about 6-7mm between the plate and the body. I was mortified that a) the tripod mount wasn't a structural part of the body - it just seems like it's part of the bottom plate instead, and b) the bottom plate is made really weak/thin 'tin' sort of material, and c) I've never seen that with a camera before. The icing on the cake was when the both the front retaining ring and blue plastic ring fell off the 17mm pancake lens. It appeared to me that the only things holding them on was a few little tiny dots of glue for the blue plastic and a tiny plastic thread for the retaining ring.

I had olympus put a new bottom plate on the e-p1 and re-do the lens, but to be honest my confidence was gone at that point - especially considering I had been really babying the camera.

I'm not saying they're rubbish or anything, but I think that they're designed and built to feel like they're well made, but they aren't so durable in actual use.

Still great little cameras though - I would buy a real pro orientated model if they brought out better lenses with it.
 
So I shoot both G1 and GF1 using CV glass exclusively. My cameras travel with me around the world and take a beating. So far, no problems. Do they give you the quality of a FF sensor camera? No, but they don't cost anywhere near as much either. :cool:
 
Tried both the Panasonic DMC-GH1 and -GH2. Didn't like how the EVF was incapable of showing a live view in low light. Decided not to buy.
 
Tried it, but did not like it, i could get the same shots with my LX3 than the GF1 in my use, so i sold it after about six months. Have thought of it later again, but i have no need for digital and the mf lenses is not optimal on digital and i want to use them at their best (with film) and at right perspective and not cropping and dont like to put hours of time on PP and also that is why i didnt get the uberexpensive Photoshop.
After all my shots is more for myself and not using them for any kind of business, so film is cheaper than having the need of upgrading my gear all the time like before, happy that i sold them crap digitals (only kept my LX3).
 
I recently got a Lumix G1 kit, and as far as digital goes, it's quite nice to use. In all honesty I think the models with just a screen rather than EVF are not enough of a step up from a compact. However, the EVF models are basically like tiny DSLRs with tiny lenses, and are perhaps the ideal camera for taking everywhere. I don't like all the faff and buttons, but maybe with time I'll work out what all the icons mean and what I can ignore and what I should not.
 
My poll selection was "no, but I will give it a try". Well, as long as the Nex familiy doesn't offer a decent (E)VF, I will give m4/3 a try, despite the bigger crop factor.

Usage: mostly like an Epson R-D1 (or M8) with my M lenses, but more compact and included P&S skills.

At the moment I think more at a Oly E-P2 than a Pana, because of the sensor anti shake, which would help with any lens mounted.

But maybe Sony comes up with a better VF solution for the next-nex? Time will tell... Until then, I collect the required budget for either Nex or m4/3 solution.
 
I bought a g h 1 t use for video work it sensor is meant to be as capable as a canon7d. Before that I used a borrowed 5d mk 2 for video work. The tiny panny is a lil power house. I like the video better from the panasonic. Its not bad at stills either. I use nikon, contax, yashica and a sigma 30 1.4 in addition to the kit lens.
 
Last year I took a Canon IVSB rangefinder to Europe. This year I'm taking a new G1 with the Canon lenses. It took me about 5 minutes to realize I can enjoy shooting travel pics a lot more when I'm seeing them every night in my hotel room. So compared to 35mm color film, yes on the u4/3. I mostly shoot LF for my "art shots", so the G1 seems to be a great general capture device and it's nice to use the old lenses for a sense of history.
 
I've just completed a run of A3 prints of pictures taken on my '£300 wonder' (E-P1/17mm f2.8/VF-1 from Park Cameras in the UK) and am bowled over by the results. My personal digital yardsticks are D200 and Epson R-D1 - no by no means latest generation - but the natural looking colours the little Olympus produces are superb, and the sharpness and detail in the images are superb.

The micro 4/3 camera sits in much the same niche as the old Rollei 35 - it's something you can carry most of the time and is no bother at all to take hiking. The big advantage is being able to change lenses, in my case old Leitz screw and M-mount optics, mounted on a Voigtlander adaptor (£150 from Robert White). Don't forget that the Olympus has built-in image stabilization, which seems to work very well - that old screw mount Canon 50mm f1.4 becomes a 100mm f1.4 with IS...

One of the reported disadvantages - having to press the OK button to get sufficient image magnification to focus on the rear screen - actually works well for candid photography. If you appear to be looking down at your camera, rather than looking through it, people don't notice you are shooting. The E-P1 has a reasonably quiet shutter too.

I'd say Stephen Gandy was not far off in calling the E-P1 a 'poor man's M9'. Poor man's M8, perhaps?
 
I am having a blast with the Olympus EP-2. It is bringing back many lenses for usage. The two favorites so far are:

1. 40mm Summicron-C (very sharp with modern look)
2. CZ 85mm 1.4 (vintage look and very sharp with lower contrast)
 
I'm using an E-PL1 w/ a Pany 20/1.7. Great combination and great companion for my M2. Functions like a digi Leica CL.
 
Yes, I have a blue G1 - love it for using my Konica hexanon primes in low light. Also have the 20mm f1.7 which I didn't like at first, but have come to appreciate it. Have the 1st 14-45mm "Kit" lens too. and it's a nice optic, the OIS in the panasonic lenses works better than the Olympus in body IS (in my opinion).

The Panasonic cams are sometimes poor in white balance, and even shooting RAW I sometimes cannot get the color balance "exactly correct". Olympus is much better in this regard.

There is an exposure lag, because the sensor but be shuttered before an exposure is made and this is the m43's biggest drawback.

I have only 4/3 Olympus cameras, no Olympus m43's (yet) hoping the "pro" m43 from Olympus is 'stellar' and makes proper use of my Oly 4/3 glass.

.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom