what do you really think of m4/3?

Rick Waldroup said:
I switched from Nikon DSLR's (after having been a Nikon shooter for decades), and went to the m4/3 system back in 2009. I have never looked back. For what I shoot, the system is almost perfect. I currently shoot a Panasonic GX-7 and a G5 with a variety of lenses, including the Pana/Leica 25 1.4, which is a superb lens.
Click to expand...

Rick I looked at your website and you have some very fine work. Excellent!
 
back alley said:
...what do you really think of the m4/3 systems?
Click to expand...

Pros:

Interchangeable Lenses

Lenses - high image quality

Size & Weight - small size and light weight are ideal for travel

Bodies - accept legacy lenses

Crop Factor - like the 2x factor when shooting legacy telephoto lenses

Operational Noise - quieter than my SLR

Aspect Ratio - the 4:3 aspect ratio is my personal favorite

Versatility - more versatile than my fixed lens mirrorless cameras

Price - reasonable and competitive



Cons:

Dependability - my two bodies broke too often

Lenses - do not like focus-by-wire lenses

Auto Focus - too slow and too inaccurate for my taste

Manual Focus - too difficult for my taste

Crop Factor - hate the 2x factor when shooting legacy wide angle lenses

Operational Noise - my micro 4/3 cameras are my loudest mirrorless cameras

Versatility - not as versatile as my SLR cameras; for example, I could really use a battery pack accessory

View Finder - would prefer a built-in view finder instead of an add-on view finder



Olympus E-p1 by Narsuitus, on Flickr
 
There are some excellent µ4/3 cams out there. And a very good photographer will produce excellent results with them.
But for me, even if I really like e.g. the Olympus OM-D10, I always have a gut feeling that they are not as versatile as an APS- or fullframe cam. Still, chances are good that this is a silly prejudice. ;)
 
Texsport said:
There is an option for several different format rations on the Olympus OMD I believe!

Texsport
Click to expand...

Yes, and this is unacceptable because it requires a non-trivial reduction in pixel dimensions.

There is no compelling reason to use a camera optimized for a format I will never use.
 
willie_901 said:
Yes, and this is unacceptable because it requires a non-trivioal reduction in pixel dimensions.

There is no compelling reason to use a camera optimized for a format I will never use.
Click to expand...

That was my final thought. I used 4/3 for a studio project, because the camera was small, but ended up reshooting on FF, rather than cropping, and just sold all the lenses etc.

I am still stuck with the lumix body, no one wanted it.
 
x-ray said:
Rick I looked at your website and you have some very fine work. Excellent!
Click to expand...

Well, thank you very much for the very kind words about my work. Most of the older work was done on film with rangefinder cameras and Nikon SLR's and DSLR's. The majority of the photos from 2008 to the present were shot with m4/3 gear. As I mentioned earlier, I find the system to be a perfect fit for the type of street and documentary stuff I shoot.

Also, I like the 4:3 ratio. When I crop, I usually find myself cropping that way or to a square format. Not sure why, but it just looks good to my eye, I guess.
 
I love my E-P1! Love my Oly 25/1.8 and Oly 45/1.8. Never lets me down and I show 11x14" and 12x16" in galleries and they look perfectly fantastic! Yes, I was a little hostile toward the 4:3 aspect ratio at first, but then got myself to recognize that it was nearly the same as many traditional larger formats, even if I had been brought up on 35mm... now I kind of prefer it to 3:2. If not 4:3, I think I'd go for 16:9... strange that you can change after so many years!
 
I really love m4/3. I'm using an Olympus E-P3 and I'm really loving the haptics of the camera, especially the quality of buttons/clicks and the ease of use of the touch screen interface to focus with. For me using m4/3 was a bit of a fluke as I had bought the E-P3 for my wife as a birthday present. But she gave me a present - she left me! The camera remained in the box for a good couple of years and then I used it a bit and then I bought a VF2 and used my legacy glass - especially my LTM stuff. However I now shoot mostly with AF lenses. First I bought a used Olympus 17/2.8 for a slim pocketable unit (and it was cheap, secondhand, but performance is poor). Then I went with the Sigma 30/2.8 and I loved that lens so much I grabbed a Sigma 60/2.8. I'll probably get the Sigma 19mm if the lawyers leave me $200 to spare. It might be a while, lol.

Battery life is also excellent.

Not sure about the issues other people find with the 4:3 ratio though? Admittedly a lot of what I shoot is for screen use only but when I print, well yeah, the little 4x6 sized prints loose out compared to 3:2, so I tend to crop in a bit with them, but when I print, I usually want a bigger print to frame. Typically with bigger prints I go for 5x7 or 8x10 and in those sizes 4:3 fits the paper better than 3:2 does. So aspect ratio is a non-event for me. As to the inherent perspective of 4:3 - well if it crops too much I take a step back. But in day-to-day use I don't find it an issue.
 
I have been with m43 since 2010 and it remains my only digital camera format. I started with an E-P1 and now have an E-P5 with four prime lenses.

I stuck it out with Olympus despite the Fuji temptation because costs are lower, but also because m43 is a better complement to my b&w film shooting than Fuji, which has the audacity to try to imitate film aesthetics.

I have been a little disgruntled by the rise of the more DSLR-like Olympus OM series and especially the new largish "pro" zoom lenses, but am looking forward to the new Pen camera and fast primes Olympus will be releasing soon.
 
Bob Michaels said:
. . . I had a m4/3 system and it did everything I needed it to do. The only reason I quit using it was that it got stolen and I came across a killer deal on a X100 to replace it.

But then I have never understood the logic that a digital camera sensor must match the size and aspect ratio of a piece of 35mm film. It always seemed like apples and oranges to me.
Click to expand...

Right on, Bob. This is what I was also saying about imitating film "looks." Let digital be digital. It has its own aesthetic.
 
I see plenty of nice images from M43, but for me the crop factor is a killer with legacy. I could not even stand APS-C.

I think it depends on the subject and how you want to shoot it. In some situations you can't tell the difference m43 vs FF, but in others it's obvious.

Bill Clark said:
It's the creativity of the person whose vision is made utilizing the tools, not the tools.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the Incas.

A whole civilization conquered by a handful of Spanish guys with better tools.
 
JP Owens said:
I shoot a Pany GH3 a lot. I wish it could be my only camera. But, the achilles heel of the m4/3 format, in my experience, is low light and dynamic range. If I nail exposure exactly, ISO 1600 is fine. Shooting with a full-frame sensor camera, though, ISO 1600 is child's play. I shoot a 5D MkIII at 6400 without a worry. And I haven't seen much progress in m4/3 ISO performance yet. The GH4 and even the newer G7 aren't significantly improved over the GH3.

I'm not sure stuffing full-frame sensors in tiny bodies is the solution, either. Despite innovations like 5-axis IS, a camera needs some mass to handle well.
Click to expand...

This has always puzzled me. And made me think there's more going on than mere differences in sensor size. After all, individual sensor sites each capture a small portion of the overall image. If each pixel performed equivalently the same between FF and m4/3, there should be no difference between them in terms of dynamic range and ISO noise. The issue should be sensor size-agnostic.

Let's say I take some FF image and crop it down to about 1/4 of its size, to simulate what the same lens would have seen on a m4/3 body. Now, are you trying to tell me that this 1/4 of a FF image SUDDENLY has less dynamic range and poorer low-light performance? I call "BS".

So, why do m4/3 sensors seem to offer less dynamic range and ISO performance than FF sensors? I contend it has little to do with the sensor size and mostly to do with the technology state of the sensor - how each pixel performs and the state-of-the-art in sensor technology employed.

So, why does it seem that mostly FF sensors are using the more sophisticated sensor technologies - making it SEEM as if it had something to do intrinsically with sensor size itself? I think it's because of the economics of the camera market. A FF sensor can be sold to the consumer, as part of the overall cost of the camera, for much more than 4x its die-cost, as compared to a m4/3 sensor. So the newer design and manufacturing processes can be employed with making FF chips, and more easily paid for with FF cameras. So there's market acceptance for a bigger mark-up with FF cameras. It's what people expect. You can't easily make money selling Chevy sedans with Porsche engines, the market won't bear with the cost. So you put a cheaper engine, less sophisticated, in a cheaper car.

~Joe
 
i've had my e-m5 since july. i love it. got the Zuiko 25/1.8 in december. fantastic lens. i keep mine set on 3:2 format; it is what i am used to.
 
JoeV,

One possible answer could be the size of the pixel well itself. Remember that most micro 4/3 sensors are 16 megapixels or so. If you quadruple that, to full-frame size, that would be the equivalent pixel density of packing 64 megapixels into a full frame sensor.
 
I have used GH-2. I was a very decent camera. I have tried the Olys, but my brain simply cannot cope with 20 or so wheels and switches in combination with 300 pages menus making each changing shooting situation an eternity before being able to capture something. Life is simply to short to fondle with camera's. My bad.

The MF implementations for m43 doesn't suit me, Again, that's me.

I miss a 17/0,7 in the lens offerings.
 
I think it were interesting concept five to seven years ago but since I didn't buy into it lost appeal in my view.

Now with excellent VF in small Pentax DSLR and focus peaking I get what I have wanted from digital non-phone camera.

Also I believe some people are sentimental and make choices based on their previous decisions. People who have used MZ-S often have chosen IstDS or someone who has used half-frame Pen can switch to digital Pen, OM to OM-D etc etc.
 
I kind of like them. I have a friend with a OMD. I tried it a bit but because I tend to like wide angles I just find the sensor a wee bit too small. I can get some nice wide angle lenses with the APS-c sensor. So I've been finding the Fuji X cameras and lenses to be a nice compromise of size and weight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom