micro 4/3rds isn't so micro anymore

[ruby.monkey]

I have an E-PM2 with 14mm f/2.5 and 20mm f/1.7. It fits tidily in my back pocket with either lens (the body is pretty much the same size as a Ricoh GRD4). Both Panasonic and Olympus offer current cameras that could do the same.

Yes, m-4/3 offerings have expanded over the years to provide larger bodies, but one can still find compact bodies and lenses in amongst them.

 

[Dogman]

My take on the micro 4/3 format

My take on the micro 4/3 format

I was an early adopter of the M4/3 format mainly because I liked the idea of a small camera that made big pictures. My main problem with M4/3 is the aspect ratio. I just don't like the 4:3 ratio. I almost always crop my M4/3 images to the 3:2 aspect ratio. When the image is cropped that much as a normal procedure, it really begins to lose a lot compared to the APS-C format. And when you consider my Fuji X-T1 (APS-C) is about the same physical size as my Olympus OMD E-M1 (M4/3), it's not hard to see why I use Fuji cameras more often. Furthermore, the Fuji's handling and operation are (for me) vastly superior to the E-M1.

So why do I continue to use M4/3? Well, I have a love/hate relationship with the E-M1 that is my current M4/3 camera. I hate the way it handles--everything seems to be in the wrong place for me--and, of course, I dislike the format. But I love the way Olympus renders colors (natural but bright and lively), I love the IBIS and I love how I can adapt my old Olympus E-series DSLR zooms to the E-M1 and they autofocus reliably under most circumstances--I really love those old Olympus zooms. I'll keep using the Olympus M4/3 for the things I love about it and tolerate those things I dislike.

 

[David Hughes]

It seems to be another example of taking something that was good because it was small, and then making it a lot bigger. With cameras, it all started with the screw-mount Leica; then went on to motor-driven SLRs with two-pound zoom lenses and a Domke f-1x or a Tamrac Pro System 12 filled with 30 more pounds of stuff.

Hi,

I don't think Leitz started it with the Leica that was only available in 1925 because Kodak had one smaller and lighter with (amongst others) a Tessar lens and bigger negative than the Leica.

Here's one of each for comparison:-

Trouble is, I've forgotten which lens is on the VPK.

Regards, David

 

[raid]

Cool name! Vest Pocket Camera.

Was it his one?

I found this info:

Vest Pocket Kodak (1912-1914)
This is the original model and doesn't have the Autographic feature which was added to create the later models. It had to be loaded through the top, inserting both film spools at once with the film stretched between them. It had the small three-blade variant of Kodak's Ball Bearing Shutter No.0. Folded it was really handsome, not bigger than many modern compact cameras. Hidden behind its lens board was its brilliant finder. A strut folding variant had a f/6.8 72mm achromatic meniscus lens, hidden behind a mask that allowed a maximum aperture of f/11.

Such a camera sold on ebay:

Kodak Autographic Vintage Vest Pocket Folding Camera 1913 See original listing
Kodak-Autographic-Vintage-Vest-Pocket-Folding-Camera-1913
Item Sold
Item condition:--
Ended: Jul 22, 2012 , 11:22AM
Price: US $20.00
Shipping: $5.99 Economy Shipping

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

The top one's a VPK with the basic/regular lens and shutter and the later - perhaps - Japan Crackle Enamel finish. I say "perhaps" as Kodak like changing models and spec rapidly and there's no way to keep up with them all these years (103) later.

Not sure about the second as I only like the ones from before and during the Great War, which is an interest of mine.

The original one (1912 onwards) you describe is rare in my part of the world but probably very common your side of the pond. Lovely cameras to handle and so on but the instruction books (real not PDF's) are expensive and rare and as for 127 film...

Regards, David

PS There's a good selection of Kodak catalogues on line at:-

http://www.kodakcollector.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7&Itemid=32

and at:- http://piercevaubel.com/cam/catalogsekc.htm

 

[peterm1]

Cool name! Vest Pocket Camera.

Was it his one?

I found this info:

Vest Pocket Kodak (1912-1914)
This is the original model and doesn't have the Autographic feature which was added to create the later models. It had to be loaded through the top, inserting both film spools at once with the film stretched between them. It had the small three-blade variant of Kodak's Ball Bearing Shutter No.0. Folded it was really handsome, not bigger than many modern compact cameras. Hidden behind its lens board was its brilliant finder. A strut folding variant had a f/6.8 72mm achromatic meniscus lens, hidden behind a mask that allowed a maximum aperture of f/11.

Such a camera sold on ebay:

Kodak Autographic Vintage Vest Pocket Folding Camera 1913 See original listing
Kodak-Autographic-Vintage-Vest-Pocket-Folding-Camera-1913
Item Sold
Item condition:--
Ended: Jul 22, 2012 , 11:22AM
Price: US $20.00
Shipping: $5.99 Economy Shipping

The name Vest Pocket Camera resonates with me. I have recently been reading about the history of Australian soldiers on the battlefields of the Western Front in World War 1 and it was mentioned that this camera was the one chosen by many Australians to take with them to make snapshots. Given the cameras date as 1913 this camera would have been the latest bit of technology back then.

It was against the rules of course but the Aussies were renowned for breaking the rules. Officers often turned a blind eye to this practice. I think they realized that these guys had come halfway around the world to fight for Britain and that some allowances needed to be made.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

FWIW, a vest is underwear in this country, we call them waistcoats and few wear them these days. That's a pity as it gave you four (then two) extra pockets.

FWIW 2, the VPK's weak spot is the shutter. Not a DIY project...

Also, they sometimes used the Universal System of aperture sizes and that confuses people these days. Or, "moving objects" means f/8 and "portraits" means f/11 - it's all good harmless fun.

Regards, David

 

[willie_901]

It is interesting to see how 4/3rds cameras have improved over the years.
A decade ago the Panasonic DMC-L1 was sold and it was a terrific camera for its time and weighed 606g with a battery. the much more capable Panasonic m4/3rds arrived in 2009 and it weighed in (with battery) at 630g.
Today, the m4/3rds Panasonic GH5 weighs 725g with battery.
The GH5 is amazing in many ways but I am not so sure that these cameras should be called micro any longer.

Well, they do have sophisticated in-body, muti-axes, image-stabilization hardware. Many photographers consider this to be extremely valuable.

Besides the weight of hardware, IBIS draws current and larger batteries are convenient.

You didn't mention lenses. Disadvantages associated with smaller sensor surface area can be offset by increases in aperture surface area. More glass and a larger body increase lens weight as well.

 

[raid]

My (old) E-P2 has built-in IS and 10X focus assist. With these two features, I can focus almost any lens wide open and get very sharp results. My Leica M8 or M9 do not have such features. I am at the mercy of RF calibration and shimming RF lenses ... etc. For dependable cameras, I choose my M 4/3 cameras first.

E-P2 weight without battery: 355g. Weight with battery and lens kit: 539g.

 

[JoeV]

I was an early adopter of the M4/3 format mainly because I liked the idea of a small camera that made big pictures. My main problem with M4/3 is the aspect ratio. I just don't like the 4:3 ratio. I almost always crop my M4/3 images to the 3:2 aspect ratio. When the image is cropped that much as a normal procedure, it really begins to lose a lot compared to the APS-C format. And when you consider my Fuji X-T1 (APS-C) is about the same physical size as my Olympus OMD E-M1 (M4/3), it's not hard to see why I use Fuji cameras more often..

Funny thing, I like to crop to 1:1, and therefore find APSC loses much more in the comparison, since the two formats are very similar in height, sensor-wise. Combined with the larger lenses for APSC, to cover the larger image circle (because APSC is wider), I find m-4/3 generally wins, excepting cameras like the Ricoh GR and Fuji X70.

As for the aspect ratio, I spent many years shooting medium format 645, which is also 4:3, and it's very close to large format, which many legendary landscape photographers used - in not such a horizontally stretched format.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

My Sony APS bodies are small enough for me. A6000, NEX-5n, and so on.

Interesting thesis: New thing takes off on the basis of being small, grows as it evolves.

Same thesis in markets: new entry based on price, moves up market as it evolves.

Noticing my iPhone *Plus is about 2x the size of the original.

 

[phofseth]

In film days I quite often left the Leicas at home and brought a smaller camera. First the Minoxes (both the tiny ones and also the later 24x35 ones - but too small a format and unreliable shutters) then the Rollei35. These days I reguarly abandon the huge Canon and its oversized optics in favour of the small, but versatile Olympus Pen F. Even its extreme pixelshuffling mode works well for non-moving landscape & architecture.

I used the early Pen since it came on the market , but disliked the lack of viewfinder (and the need for an unwieldy hump if you insisted on adding one in order to see the picture in bright sunlight). The F has kept a screen (that can be folded away), has some buttons that can get accidentally jiggled , but is the best option so far.

With suitable adapters all manners of optics can be fitted and will be stabilized. Tiny industrial and cine-lenses, Leica M as well as the bigger Leica R and other FFglass plus Metabones Speedbooster performs well. Still smaller and more robust than autofocus & in lens-stabilized FF-Canons.

The Leica R9 got a locking button on a dial that could be too easily shiften on the R8. Olympus could do the same in software, but a simplified version without "art" button , only Raw files (no need for conversion power) , no wifi, no filming option , focus as well as light metering point fixed in the center (with clearly discernible half press on the shutter button) , but with "picture in picture" optional small 10x enlargement in the middle would be ideal. As far as I am concerned, this cheap version might even get away with calling it "special edition" and a larger price tag.

p.

 

[Axel]

It is interesting to see how 4/3rds cameras have improved over the years.
A decade ago the Panasonic DMC-L1 was sold and it was a terrific camera for its time and weighed 606g with a battery. the much more capable Panasonic m4/3rds arrived in 2009 and it weighed in (with battery) at 630g.
Today, the m4/3rds Panasonic GH5 weighs 725g with battery.
The GH5 is amazing in many ways but I am not so sure that these cameras should be called micro any longer.

4/3rds sensors are still micro. In all other belongs its a system like much others are.
The weight of a Fuji X-M1 is 330g and an X-T2 body is 500g.

 

[Bingley]

Happy with the Pen F

Happy with the Pen F

A follow up to my previous post about upgrading from an EP5 to a Pen F... So far, it's been a very satisfactory upgrade. The EVF works very well, and the camera's handling provides a more rangefinder-like experience than the EP5. The AF is very fast, although not noticeably faster than the EP5's. I like that the LCD screen is not visible in normal use (you have to flip it out to see it) which discourages chimping. The Pen F can be operated in a silent mode, which makes it a very discreet street shooter. Image quality is excellent. Because of the excellent handling and fast AF, I'm considering selling my X100T, even though the latter has superb IQ.