m-4/3: Are we there yet?

For me, it's there.

My E-620 is sweating bullets because I kept looking at the E-P2. Black body, more lens adaptability than the E-620, HD video (not that I care too much, just curious), and that cool-looking, swiveling EVF.

All I want and expect from a digital camera, really.

Now the wait for the street-price to go down... or for an early-buyer who got bored with his.
 
Based only on sample images online, it's not there yet for me. But the RD1 has proven a wonderful bridge to digital captures with my M lenses. When we have full frame + HD video + M compatibility in a compact body (for 6k less than an M9), I will likely move from 95% film use to 95% digital.
 
Hi,

sorry please don't get me wrong .. the stuff works try these links for some examples on the very first generation EP-1.

these are from a Noctilux.
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11739

these are a Summilx 75.
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11801

I hope I don't cross any boundaries cross posting from getdpi but it is also another decent forum site where people are interested in the results.
If you read the threads you'll see that the guy is just having a blast trying his collection (or his girlfriend's to be exact) of old and expensive glass on a small sensor camera .. yes he comments of the magnification factor and shallow dof - but in the Summilx series he didn't even zoom the focus ..

like i said if you are curious try one .. they can be fun.
 
Well you have the M9 and any future FF m-mount camera for your legacy FF glass. So yes, you're there.

The m4/3 system is something else entirely, unless you don't have the $$ for FF RF. Really the system is not about our FF legacy glass. It's an alternative to dSLR's. Factoring out FF (and fudging a bit), m4/3 is to dSLR as RF is to SLR. I think that's one reason why the format is so attractive here. It's not an SLR system. We now have a RF-like inter-changeable lens digital camera system. It's smaller than the big clunky dSLR's and has a unique/different viewing system (and a lot of other attributes that can/might appeal to RF users). Until FF m-mount prices drop to consumer levels, m4/3 is the alternative to dSLR. I think m4/3 is here to stay and it is only going to get better. So, to answer your question, yes, with m4/3 we are there.

/
 
RayPA said:
Well you have the M9 and any future FF m-mount camera for your legacy FF glass. So yes, you're there.

The m4/3 system is something else entirely, unless you don't have the $$ for FF RF. Really the system is not about our FF legacy glass. It's an alternative to dSLR's. Factoring out FF (and fudging a bit), m4/3 is to dSLR as RF is to SLR. I think that's one reason why the format is so attractive here. It's not an SLR system. We now have a RF-like inter-changeable lens digital camera system. It's smaller than the big clunky dSLR's and has a unique/different viewing system (and a lot of other attributes that can/might appeal to RF users). Until FF m-mount prices drop to consumer levels, m4/3 is the alternative to dSLR. I think m4/3 is here to stay and it is only going to get better. So, to answer your question, yes, with m4/3 we are there.

/
Click to expand...

I agree with this analysis. If you are into rangefinders, this is one of the best digital RF-like systems out there. But it is not a RF for mounting your M-glass. It's entirely sui generis. If you want to mount M-glass get a Leica or Epson.

/T
 
The point of using good M glass is the ability to shoot it wide open (for me in any event.) I love that look when good bokeh combines with a main subject that just "pops" from the background. Without a good viewfinder and excellent focus confirmation M4/3s are just not up to the mark. I wonder when (if) manufacturers will ever get this message. Maybe they are so focussed on the mass market that they simply do not care about us minority of "nutters" (probably how many view us) who wish to use "old" lenses on new cameras.
 
It's been here for a year now. I'm really enjoying my 50/1.5 CZO Sonnar, subjects 'pop' from the background (and snap and crackle, too.)

Panasonic G1, 50/1.5 CZO Sonnar @ f/2.0, Amedeo Nikon RF adapter, Leica M to micro 4/3 adapter.

dragonfly.jpg
 
peterm1 said:
The point of using good M glass is the ability to shoot it wide open (for me in any event.) I love that look when good bokeh combines with a main subject that just "pops" from the background. Without a good viewfinder and excellent focus confirmation M4/3s are just not up to the mark. I wonder when (if) manufacturers will ever get this message. Maybe they are so focussed on the mass market that they simply do not care about us minority of "nutters" (probably how many view us) who wish to use "old" lenses on new cameras.
Click to expand...

For me, M glass mounted on a G1 shot wide open just does not have this effect, at least no more so than the native fast 20mm f1.7. So, I just don't bother with the M glass anymore. YMMV.

/T
 
I used m4/3 (G1) with Voigtlander Ultron 28/1.9.
G1 + M adapter + M->LTM adapter + Ultron.
Pictures from that combo are really nice. I know corner is little soft and harsh, but generally for photography great combo.
And images from Ultron 28 on G1 are "different", in my opinion better than Panasonic lenses (include 20mm f1.7). Pictures from Ultron have "undefinable character" - theese are less "analytical", less computer-rendered. I don't know how to say it.
 
snausages2000 said:
Based only on sample images online, it's not there yet for me. But the RD1 has proven a wonderful bridge to digital captures with my M lenses. When we have full frame + HD video + M compatibility in a compact body (for 6k less than an M9), I will likely move from 95% film use to 95% digital.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I guess if you're the objective kind of person, you may be able to determine what camera to get by samples online.

I on the other hand can't. If the image doesn't grab me in some ways (either technical or artistic), it doesn't matter what digital camera took it.

This is why I put such low value to "review" sample images, because most of them are either so boring or uninteresting for me to decide anything by. There are exceptions to this, of course.
 
Dave Wilkinson said:
I took them out of the muffler - on my bike...sounded great! 😀
Click to expand...

Haaah, if only it was that easy to get a baffle for a lens.

So what other alternatives are there to a M9 that's affordable?
m4/3 over RD-1 for most ye reckon?

I'm just trying to tell myself I'm not just daft to persistently want to use wide CV glass over a kit 17mm..
 
RD-1 - why didn't they rejuvenate it when they re-introduced it? a really missed opportunity. maybe zeiss will do the good deed and bring out an improved DRF. However the good old G2 would be the one to digitise.
M8 - was good, I had one liked it but in the end couldn't keep up with the manual focus.
M9 - expensive and see M8.
X1 - expensive and limited.
so ...
I picked up a GF1.
I can auto focus or manual. I can play with aperture or shutter, I can stick all kinds of glass on the pointy end - or just use the bundled 20mm.
Before you guys kill it - try one .. GF1 .. EP-1 or the newer EP-2 - like i said if you don't want to admit it into the fold you will be able to sell it on for a few $$$ less than you bought it.
If however you want better than M9 and pay less $$ than a Disney Toy figure then it aint gonna happen. Buy the M9 and be happy, because everything else will never match up.
 
Benjamin Marks said:
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?
Click to expand...

Based on your definition of "there", we are not there and we may never be there.

The mFT system truly is a system. MFT lenses are designed to match the sensor-well design. MFT lenses send data to the in-camera image processor. Non-MFT lenses can produce interesting and useful photos on a MFT body. But MFT sensors give the highest level of performance with lenses designed with the MFT system in mind.

From an Olympus press release:

"The Micro Four Thirds System standard meets the telecentric requirements of the 100 percent dedicated digital design, where light rays must strike the imaging sensor nearly head-on for optimum edge-to-edge image reproduction. This is achieved using a much smaller design than the Four Thirds System standard by reducing the outer diameter of the lens mount by 6mm, and the distance from the lens mount to the focal plane (the flange back distance) by approximately half."​

For more details see : http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/21693_7045.htm

Some MFT bodies use in-camera image processing (even for RAW files) to correct for non-telecentic lens artifacts. But if a lens has to be chipped and have electrical connections for the processor to make these corrections, then legacy lenses would not be corrected for telecentric artifacts. New MFT sensor designs allegedly reduce the image artifacts from non-telecentric lenses. It remains to be seen which cameras have these new sensors and if the new sensor designs still require lens specific data to fully compensate for telecentric artifacts.

The performance of legacy lenses will depend greatly on the non-MFT lens and MFT body in use. It is unlikely legacy lenses will communicate with MFT camera processor firmware as this requires electrical connections between the lens and the camera.

Unless one has a large number of legacy lenses and enjoys testing lens performance, the most efficient way to produce photographs with MFT bodies is with MFT lenses. The two lenses (LUMIX 14-45/3.5-5.6 and LUMIX 20/1.7) I use with the G1 produce excellent results up to ISO 800.
 
I was initially intrigued by the Panasonic G-1 because I would be able to use my Canon FD glass with an adapter and have infinity focus. But I consider the micro-4/3 format to be more of a drawback than an advantage in ways. It just about eliminates the use of FF wide angles for their intended purposes, for example.

I really like the idea of the EVF, and think this is a technology that's long overdue. I suspect that the major Camera makers are quite busy right now with designs that will incorporate hi-rez EVFs and no mirror boxes, but with larger sensors, and hopefully FF sensors.

When the day comes that I can buy a "reasonably priced" FF EVIL (gotta do something about that acronym, though -- how about SLEV?) that has a short enough registration distance such that I can buy adapters for just about any lens mount in existence, then I will consider it to have arrived. I suspect this sort of technology is still at least a couple of years in the future, and probably five to ten years away from being "reasonably priced," if ever.

Having a short registration distance does not necessarily mean that a camera maker would have to redesign its lenses -- at first, at any rate. The maker could make available an adapter that allows for full communication with existing optics, and gradually replace its existing lenses with ones that will be more compact and probably optically superior, much the way many RF lenses are both more compact and superior to SLR lenses because they don't have to incorporate retrofocus designs, some of which can be quite a bit more complex than their RF counterparts.
 
willie_901 said:
Unless one has a large number of legacy lenses and enjoys testing lens performance, the most efficient way to produce photographs with MFT bodies is with MFT lenses. The two lenses (LUMIX 14-45/3.5-5.6 and LUMIX 20/1.7) I use with the G1 produce excellent results up to ISO 800.
Click to expand...

I don't have a large number of legacy lenses and I do not enjoy testing lens performance. I also don't photograph for efficiency's sake. 🙂 Legacy lenses offer a look that is not achievable with the standard micro 4/3 lenses, as good as they are. Every camera system has compromises and issues of one kind or another, even the M9. There will be new cameras that will overcome some or all of the compromises of micro 4/3 eventually, but as of today this is my choice.
 
cooltouch said:
When the day comes that I can buy a "reasonably priced" FF EVIL (gotta do something about that acronym, though -- how about SLEV?) that has a short enough registration distance such that I can buy adapters for just about any lens mount in existence, then I will consider it to have arrived.
Click to expand...

That may never happen--I think the notion of full frame is going to become less and less important as the sensor technology gets better and better, and more lenses for this size sensor become available. Leica may be your only choice for a full frame camera that takes all your old RF lenses.
 
I realize that FF for legacy lenses is not without its technical challenges. My assumption is that the M9 would have been the M8 if this had not been true. But with many camera makers turning to mirrorless solutions and EVFs, I have this "just over the horizen" feeling about the technology that I did not have even when the R-D1 was first released. Maybe the M10 will be an EVF camera without the complex RF roller-cam-arm that has defined RF photography. That would be a leap.

In terms of the current offerings, suddenly the 1.5 "crop factor" of the R-D1 seems quite luxurious. Maybe the definition of "there" in my OP above could be modified to include an aftermarket software fix to mimic the in-camera processing that fixes the corners of images produced with legacy lenses. Kind of like Corner-Fix on steroids.

I will be sad if a 20/1.7 became the new default normal lens. Regardless of the "crop factor," a 20mm lens just doesn't maintain the relationships between foreground and background and in-focus and out-of-focus areas that I have come to love in 35mm-world (the previous mini-format, seen from the perspective of the Speed Graphic wielding set). Plus ca change and all that.

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