m-4/3: Are we there yet?

B

Benjamin Marks

Veteran
Local time
1:27 PM
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
3,340
I have been watching with some interest the development of this new format and I half-way think that these cameras may be where a lot of good RF glass winds up in the next generation or so. My question to those who have taken the plunge is: are we there yet?

"There" in my mind would be an inter-brand platform that can capture the unique qualities of legacy RF glass while giving us access to advances in IQ as a result of high-ISO performance, anti-shake technology, EVF and the like.

If the answer is "we ain't there yet", what do you perceive as the stumbling blocks? I have heard about less than optimal performance, for instance, with Leica glass + adapters. True?

Interested in your collective wisdom.

Ben Marks
 
Wouldn't a full frame sensor be required in order to "capture the unique qualities of legacy RF glass". I think that's what be required to fulfill your criterion in any meaningful way. Really don't get this business of trying to use m 4/3 as a platform for 35mm lenses. I mean since when are rangefinder users so excited about telephotos?
 
This is a hard one to nail down. On one hand we finally have a cheaper alternative for out M mount glass on digital. That is why I plunked down for a EP1. If you are using lenses like 50mm which then you get the equivalent of 100mm lenses and can live with that then yes its not too bad. If you use wider lenses then no its really not there yet for adapted lens users. I have notices with my Zeiss 28mm, 21 and Leica 35mm lenses that the corners are poor when using them on m4/3. Especially the 21, which on this camera suffers a lot from being really great quality on film to being really mediocre out towards the corners.

As for as using the lenses made for the system I think its not so bad, as much bad press as the EP1 gets, you can have results out of the camera with the kit lens that stand up very well to the likes of a Canon 5D with good glass. High ISO is acceptable. The addition of image stabilization in body is a nice idea in theory but I am not really feeling that it is all that effective with the adapted lenses.

As a cheap alternative to Leica M8's and M9's.....we ain't there yet in my opinion
 
In my opinion the main 'stumbling block' is the 4/3 sensor - itself!, so far we have progressed towards the 'ideal' of a full-frame - 35mm size sensor, with the APS 'C' size a second, but very efficient, best. The 4/3 sensor comes a little below this - towards the best of the 'compacts'. I was brought up with an old saying - -'a good big 'un will always beat a good little 'un!', and wonder just how much can be extracted from - or packed into a tiny device. Last week I handled an Olympus EP at my local camera store, an was impressed - and quite tempted, but as is usually the case for me, with a pocket camera, the deal killer was the lack of an optical viewfinder!, back to the sensor issue - if I buy a new pocket camera in the near future ( I am quite likely to! ) It is more likely to be the Sigma DP1/DP2 - for all it's shortcomings!
Dave.
 
I have given up using my M lenses on the Lumix G1 with one exception. When I need a fast tele lens I use the new Leica 75mm f2.5 Summarit, because the native m4/3 zoom tele is too slow. If I had a faster native tele lens I would use that. The 2x crop factor makes it impractical to use the M lenses you are used to - the become way too long. Also, I have not seen a characteristic Leica M lens "look" when the lenses are used on my G1. Truth to tell, they look pretty much like the native m4/3rds lenses. Also, image stabilization and auto-focus are darned nice when you get older. ;-)

So, if you want a platform for your M lenses, I think you need to stick with a native M-mount body, which for now means either an older Epson or the newer Leica M8/M9. For my money and taste, though, the m4/3rds comes pretty darned close to doing for me what film rangefinders did. Certainly, on a price/performance basis it beats the pants off the M8/M9.

/T
 
I wouldn't rush out and sink loot in to M4/3 for the purposes of using RF lenses until I saw what Sony, Nikon, and Samsung will be offering in terms of EVIL cameras. Samsung, at least, will be using an APS-C sensor with a 1.5x crop, and sony is rumored to be announcing their EVIL camera tomorrow. Judging from the patents that have come to light, Nikon's looks to be pretty fascinating, as it does not use a shutter. The EVIL cameras are still only a year or so old, and, IMO, still a bit too new to make a significant long-term commitment to. When the four thirds system was announced several years ago, the concept made sense, but now that full frame sensors are becoming affordable, and APS-C is beginning to be used in more and more compact cameras, i am not convinced that 4/3 is a viable long range solution, especially for anyone who likes wide angle lenses.
 
Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens . .


Sort of a DSLR without the 'R', if you see what I mean. And no, I will not be going in a digital direction in the foreseeable future, with either system.
:)
 
Last edited:
As a student who wants to shoot compact for street in the form of a rf but with the flexibility of digital, this is all I can pretty much consider taking a plunge into, along with a 21/4 color-skopar.

I'm still trying to get more info on what I heard about a baffle greatly improving corner sharpness with wide lenses, and if the baffle on the voigtlander m4/3 adapter deals sufficiently with this.

Merkin's made me have some second thoughts though...
 
I don't think it's an adequate substitute for RF glass. But it's a great platform nonetheless. The sensor is, to my surprise, really very good--nearly the equal of my APS-C DSLR...and it will get better with each new generation.

It's a great platform for experimentation, as well--weird old lenses, strange adapters. It's a PERFECT digital platform for Pen F lenses...and the native glass is pretty impressive so far, for such a new system.

For RF wides, it can't compare to even the R-D1, let alone the M9. But for RF lenses over 50--especially fast 50's used as portrait lenses--it does very admirably.
 
Hmm, image quality out of the GF1 / 20mm kit lens probably surpasses much of what's possible with any 35mm film camera (IMHO). I agree with initial posts - M mount glass isn't the best match for the M-4/3 system so if extending the life of these lenses is the issue then no, it's not a great solution. Otherwise, and from a purely photographic standpoint the limits to your creativity and the results you can achieve with the M-4/3 system derive from outside of the camera itself (IMHO again).
 
well for what my opinion is worth .. yea maybe not much :( ... I tried it and still have it - i tried the GF1 with the 20mm as a camera which you can pop in your pocket and not care too much .. when you need it .. it works. You have control over the aperture, shutter and focus - like with a grown up camera. I found it fun to use and will keep hold of it for a bit longer. I have nikon af-d glass and i can confirm the adapters work as expected. but you should think of them as a way to use old glass - not to get the best from old glass.
but all kinds of glass can be used - and the guys do use them - old Cinema C-mounts are popular for their small size, cheap (now rising quickly) price and fast speed .. like f0.95.
As much as i'd like a M9 i cannot afford one and after my romance with the M8 realise the limitations of my manual focus abilities - eyes always the eyes.
with manual lenses the ability to zoom the view is great .. it works .. the speed of refresh is fast enough - never up to a proper af of course - but streets better than the traditional smoke and mirrors.
if you are curios - try one - you can always dump it on eBay afterwards they are still very high in demand.
 
That is really interesting. I am selling an LX-3 just now and thought about putting the money towards an m-4/3 system. Sounds like waiting a year for bugs/kinks/next generation makes some sense. Don't get me wrong, I have liked the LX-3, but it is a stand alone camera and I am really a systems guy (with a weakness for adapters). I have also liked the concept of focusing, say, a Noctilux through-the-lens. Wait a year, then see.

Ben Marks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom