Should I experience MFT?

First, I care little for shallow DOF as a gimmick effect. Most of the famous small-format images made in the 20th century used as wide of DOF as the photographer could manage; that's why all those manual focus lenses had DOF scales on them, for maximizing the DOF.

That said, I've discovered from shooting m4/3 these last six years that I really prefer the 4:3 aspect ratio over the wider, shorter 3:2 of APSC and 135 formats. Especially for shooting mixed subject matter in public, often to get a subject full height in the image means pulling back and getting too much of the surrounding landscape, if shooting in 3:2.

I realized just recently that my Bronica ETRS 645 format camera was also 4:3 aspect ratio, a camera I love using.

And of course, if I crop an APSC camera image to 4:3, the effective sensor size begins to approach that of m4:3 anyway. Same if cropping either format to 1:1. The two sensors are very similar in height, with APSC being wider.

Yea, if 3:2 images were that important to me, I'd consider changing formats, but I just don't compose that way, it seems too panorama-like.

~Joe
 
I'm an Olympus fan but I'm also a sensor-size snob :D

One day I'll get the OM-D just for fun, but from what I hear, they are selling like hotcakes in Asia even among professionals due to being small and high-quality.
 
rparmar said:
Wrong.

Have you actually used one of these cameras? Or looked at any of the tens of thousands of photos produced with them? You can have DOF as thin as you like. Not too many systems have f/0.95 lenses, let alone three of them covering the focal range.

While I acknowledge the importance of sensor size (I have shot 645), for 99.9% of all users it is a non issue.
Click to expand...

To answer your question, yes, I've owned and used both the EP series as well as the E-3 for a while. My comment stands. You can't AF the voigtlander .95 lens and it's still not as good as say the Fujifilm 35mm f1.4 that has native AF, is cheap, and weighs have as much for the X system.
 
IMO, the sensor size thing is overblown. If you want razor thin DoF, then m4/3 may not be your bag. However, I find that in reality I want such a thin DoF so infrequently it's not an issue.

In terms of high-ISO performance, my EM1 will go toe-to-toe with any of the APS-C cameras on the market, and quite a few FF cameras as well (except the A7S, D4s, and a few others). I can shoot ISO 6400 just fine. Anything beyond that--coming from a background in film--is absurdly dark anyway. Just because the A7S goes to ISO 256,000 doesn't mean I'd ever want/need anything that crazy. High ISO is just another way to sell cameras anymore, along with sensor size. I don't have high-ISO envy, or sensor envy.

I love the small size, blazing AF speed, weather-sealed body, amazing JPEGs, and 4:3 native aspect ratio. The wide selection of lenses is great, too.
 
Life is too short to worry about camera choices. I say, get a used em5 and hit the street with it. Sell it later if you dont like the feel of it. You'd probably lose $50 from the trade, the experience is worth every penny.

A lot of people praise the image Q and IBIS from that cam. You just have to experience it firsthand.
 
The M43 system is quite good. I have the EM-5 & EM-1 bodies and a number of lenses, both native and adapted. The cameras are very nice to shoot with. Compact and light even with the pro line of zooms (with these combinations they are also weather sealed!). You can also get some very nice prime lenses for these cameras.

However, they are not perfect and cannot function as well as the FF cameras *in some instances*. As others explained, don't look for super thin DOF, but it's no worse than the APCS sensor cameras. The IBIS is nothing short of fantastic. But again, the low light performance is not as good as the FF DSLR with fast glass.

Try the EM-5 with a 17mm f1.8 and the PL12-35 f2,8 or the Zuiko 12-40 f2.8, you might really like them.

Of course, I just bought a Leica M 240 LOL!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom