Micro 4/3, seriously worth a look

[woof woof]

I know I ma making extreme arguments but the comparisons are often so pointless. I have yet to find anything that really competes with a high end DSLR for high speed action, especially at the 300-500mm end of the range. But generally a camera is a camera is a camera.

I agree. If you want to shoot fast action at 400mm you may just reach for the DSLR

If you want to take a small light camera with you when picking brambles you may just reach for Compact System Camera

[xpatUSA]

I took this shot whilst out picking brambles the other day. It was taken with a Panasonic G1 fitted with a Minolta Rokkor 35mm f1.8 lens. The shot came out quite well and I'm posting it here to show an advantage these cameras have over a conventional DSLR. I captured this shot on the first attempt and if I'd used my 5D I'd almost certainly have had to chimp and play with diffrent compensation to avoid blowing the highlights or making the shadows too dark. Despite the G1's lack of DR v the 5D the G1 when using the in view histogram actually enabled me to get the shot first time

Alan's experience is typical of Panasonic 'G1, GH1, GH2, etc. models. The combination of live view, either on the tiltable LCD or through the EVF, allows exceptional control of the exposure especially with the in-display live histogram and spot metering (to do your own thinking and to change the exposure on-the-fly - as opposed to farting around with EC).

Compared to the after-the-fact blinkies on my SD9's 1.8" invisible-in-sunlight LCD followed by the delete button, the re-shoots ad naus, - the Panasonic MFT cameras are a joy to use, yes, even for serious shots.

I miss blackberry pickin'

[jcuknz]

It is rather sad the miss placed superiority of some DSLR users which has been around since I first started using a good bridge camera, not all are equal. I see little point is posting to the web or here becuase what can you really see and appreciate on a monitor .... creativity,composition, exposure but IQ ... not on your nelly As Kathy said MFT can be $250 and the DSLR thousands and most of the time the result from good hands cannot be separated .... so use the tool you want and are happy with becuase a happy photographer is probably enjoying life which is the important thing.

[AB26]

I captured this shot on the first attempt and if I'd used my 5D I'd almost certainly have had to chimp and play with diffrent compensation to avoid blowing the highlights or making the shadows too dark. Despite the G1's lack of DR v the 5D the G1 when using the in view histogram actually enabled me to get the shot first time

Hi Alan,

That statement proves my point. The G1 might be worth a look but it can never be a replacement for the 5D. What you have proved to me is that you should not blame the 5D for not getting the same shots as you can get with a G1, you only have yourself to blame. If you cannot do better than that with a 5D you need to learn how to setup the 5D. MASTER CAMERA SETTINGS!

You need to master settings on the 5D to capture images. The G1 is doing it for you. Using a G1 (MFT) as an alternative to “get a shot” due to lack of knowledge of the 5D (DSLR) settings is no reason to replace a DSLR with a MFT. You can use the MFT as guide to improve your DSLR skill and you will find the DSLR doing a much better job than the MFT.

I got a Sony bridge camera that I often use as guide to learn more about camera settings. It can shoot 10 FPS, Panorama in camera, HDR in camera, has a 16MP sensor and is very light to carry around, has a 30X zoom lens, it is a superb little tool. It is in my camera bag with the Nikon D200, making the bag weigh in at 6.3Kg. Can it render the same IQ as the Nikon? NO it cannot! It cannot do what the Nikon was made to do.

Once you have mastered the settings on the 5D you will be able to “get the shot first time”.

Cameras are not merely tools, cameras are sophisticated tools for a specific purpose. The more sophisticated the tool the more skill you need to operate it. DSLR users are usually camera users with a more sophisticated taste for photography. We usually strive to improve our photographic skill to rise above the average P&S user whom only strives to get snapshots. The P&S, bridge and MFT shooter striving to improve their photographic skills usually upgrade to DSLR. Going the opposite way is downgrading.

Downgrading for a specific purpose might be justified but advocating your downgrade to be a worthy alternative to replace a DSLR is admitting you were not yet ready for a DSLR. It is better to start from the bottom going up than it is going down from the top.

[Sponge]

You need to master settings on the 5D to capture images. The G1 is doing it for you. Using a G1 (MFT) as an alternative to “get a shot” due to lack of knowledge of the 5D (DSLR) settings is no reason to replace a DSLR with a MFT. You can use the MFT as guide to improve your DSLR skill and you will find the DSLR doing a much better job than the MFT.

As I understand it, Alan was saying that due to the advantage of having a fast and accurate use of Live View on m4/3 he was able to "get the shot first time." This is the direction that DSLR's are headed in as well (most current example being Canon's 70D). According to your way of thinking you might as well not use Auto-focus, otherwise you'll be using the same technological benefits that current cameras offer…

I got a Sony bridge camera that I often use as guide to learn more about camera settings. It can shoot 10 FPS, Panorama in camera, HDR in camera, has a 16MP sensor and is very light to carry around, has a 30X zoom lens, it is a superb little tool. It is in my camera bag with the Nikon D200, making the bag weigh in at 6.3Kg. Can it render the same IQ as the Nikon? NO it cannot! It cannot do what the Nikon was made to do.

I have a Fuji 30x bridge camera which is nice for what it is. However, I wouldn't compare it to a m4/3 camera which is much closer to APS-C DSLR's in sensor size, image quality and capabilities than you seem to think. Take a look at this diagram from CiC about sensor size if you haven't already.
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...ensor-size.htm
The small yellow rectangle in the middle is roughly the size of the sensor in your Sony bridge camera whereas the green rectangle is the 4/3 sensor size. Quite a bit of difference between these sizes but not so much if you compare the 4/3 sensor to the red and blue APS-C sensor sizes. The real differences come when comparing these to Full Frame but since you say you have a Nikon D200 I'm assuming you're talking about these differences between APS-C and m4/3, IQ isn't that different between these two formats. What is different is the weight of my bag if I were to put my Fuji and my m4/3 kit (4 lenses) in it, easily under 2/kg...

Cameras are not merely tools, cameras are sophisticated tools for a specific purpose. The more sophisticated the tool the more skill you need to operate it. DSLR users are usually camera users with a more sophisticated taste for photography. We usually strive to improve our photographic skill to rise above the average P&S user whom only strives to get snapshots.

This statement makes me think that you have no experience with m4/3 or mirrorless cameras in general. I'll bet you my camera (Olympus E-M5) is just as "sophisticated" as your D200 even though it's not Olympus' pro-line m4/3 camera. I make decisions on aperture, shutter speed, ISO, focus, metering method, flash exp., white balance, even updated live-view for long-exposures, etc., what are these more "sophisticated" options that you are choosing that I can't? Besides that m4/3 has been shown to have some of the fastest and most accurate focusing ILC's when using s-af.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012...-shot-accuracy
My E-M5 auto-focuses instantaneously and even dpreview.com backed up Olympus' claims that it had the fastest s-af of any ILC at the time.

Full frame DSLR's are the best choice for some photographers, especially those that need fast focus tracking, more depth of field control and the best in image quality. For the rest of us I don't think it's so clear cut. If things continue the way they have been, it will be even less so.

[woof woof]

Hi Alan,
That statement proves my point. The G1 might be worth a look but it can never be a replacement for the 5D. What you have proved to me is that you should not blame the 5D for not getting the same shots as you can get with a G1, you only have yourself to blame. If you cannot do better than that with a 5D you need to learn how to setup the 5D. MASTER CAMERA SETTINGS!

I know how to use my 5D thanks but with live view and an in view histogram shooting is actually easier in hard to meter situations. Getting that shot first time without blowing the highlights would have been possible with the 5D by exposing for the highlights but the shadows could have ended up being too dark. With a conventional DSLR I'd have been faced with a choice of several metering modes and it's highly likely that none of them would have been as good as using live view and a histogram. I'd have been left to expose mostly for the highlights and basically guess how much compo to dial in and chimp.

I've taken both the 5D and G1 out at the same time and shot the same difficult to meter scene with each and I can say that it's easier to capture a difficult to meter scene first time with live view and a histogram than it is with an OVF equipped conventional DSLR. I know that after taking a shot like that one with my 5D I'd then have had to check for blinkies and probably shoot again after dialling in some compensation. I know because this is a specific test I carried out when evaluating the G1. With the G1 there a much reduced need to chimp. Live view equipped cameras are much more WYSIWYG, and I think that DSLR's will go the way of CSC. It's only a matter or time IMVHO.

You need to master settings on the 5D to capture images. The G1 is doing it for you. Using a G1 (MFT) as an alternative to “get a shot” due to lack of knowledge of the 5D (DSLR) settings is no reason to replace a DSLR with a MFT. You can use the MFT as guide to improve your DSLR skill and you will find the DSLR doing a much better job than the MFT.

As I love repeating myself... I know how to use my 5D I've been using cameras for over 40 years and SLR's/DSLR's for over 30 years. Granted that's no guarantee of competence but take it from me, my images may be artistically mediocre but technically they're bang on and I do understand about aperture, shutter speed and ISO That's all you need from a technical stand point.

Once you have mastered the settings on the 5D you will be able to “get the shot first time”.

Take it from me, most cameras when left to meter that scene would probably have cocked it up. That shot was only captured first time because of manual intervention and DSLR would have needed manual intervention too. By manual intervention I mean dialling in some exposure compensation.

Cameras are not merely tools, cameras are sophisticated tools for a specific purpose. The more sophisticated the tool the more skill you need to operate it. DSLR users are usually camera users with a more sophisticated taste for photography. We usually strive to improve our photographic skill to rise above the average P&S user whom only strives to get snapshots. The P&S, bridge and MFT shooter striving to improve their photographic skills usually upgrade to DSLR. Going the opposite way is downgrading.

Downgrading for a specific purpose might be justified but advocating your downgrade to be a worthy alternative to replace a DSLR is admitting you were not yet ready for a DSLR. It is better to start from the bottom going up than it is going down from the top.

I really don't know what to say to that last bit but I'll have a quick go...

I think that one test of being "good" at our little hobby is knowing the capability of our kit and our own skill level and making the best. I wouldn't shoot night time shots with my G1, I'd use my 5D, and if I wanted to capture the best (technically) image that I could I'd use my 5D and a nice lens but there are times when I don't want the size, the weight and the "look at me" factor that comes with a DSLR and a big fat lens and if those occasions involve shooting in good light so that I can use low to middling ISO's I've convinced myself through testing and comparative shooting and examination of shots on screen and in print up to A3+ that my CSC can and does produce images that can easily be lost amongst my 5D images and I fully expect newer CSC to do even better.

Anyway, the opinion is out there and I would encourage anyone interested in a smaller system to take a long hard look at one.

[xpatUSA]

Cameras are not merely tools, cameras are sophisticated tools for a specific purpose. The more sophisticated the tool the more skill you need to operate it. DSLR users are usually camera users with a more sophisticated taste for photography. We usually strive to improve our photographic skill to rise above the average P&S user whom only strives to get snapshots. The P&S, bridge and MFT shooter striving to improve their photographic skills usually upgrade to DSLR. Going the opposite way is downgrading.

Downgrading for a specific purpose might be justified but advocating your downgrade to be a worthy alternative to replace a DSLR is admitting you were not yet ready for a DSLR. It is better to start from the bottom going up than it is going down from the top.

André, the above does sound rather elitist, don't you think? Probably why so many are responding . .

Just to stir the pot, I take the opposite view. My Praktica MTL3 with zero complications was an SOB to get good pictures out of. My Sigma SD9 is almost as bad in terms of skill needed to make a half-decent shot, not to mention the muscle power required to hold it up to the eye.

Any modern DSLR or MFT just needs to waved in the general direction of the subject and the rest is automatic . . as proved by your recent supermarket shot (just kidding, honest).

[MattR]

Wow! Guess I must have hit a nerve with Andre! If you'd care you actually read my initial post I said don't discount this format, not that I thought it was better. Of course DSLRs are excellent, I never said they weren't. thanks to everyone who replied. I probably will be a bit more careful in future though. I seem to have raised some blood pressures!

[AB26]

I have a Fuji 30x bridge camera which is nice for what it is. However, I wouldn't compare it to a m4/3 camera which is much closer to APS-C DSLR's in sensor size, image quality and capabilities than you seem to think. Take a look at this diagram from CiC about sensor size if you haven't already.
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...ensor-size.htm

Full frame DSLR's are the best choice for some photographers, especially those that need fast focus tracking, more depth of field control and the best in image quality. For the rest of us I don't think it's so clear cut. If things continue the way they have been, it will be even less so.

Sorry Patrick, my mistake. I was under the impression a Canon 5D is a full frame camera and a little more sophisticated than my D200.

[AB26]

but take it from me, my images may be artistically mediocre but technically they're bang on and I do understand about aperture, shutter speed and ISO That's all you need from a technical stand point.

Alan, Alan, Alan why do you give me a stick to hit you with.
Making statements like this is looking for trouble. You know as well as I do that Aperture, Shutter speed and ISO settings are the bare basic settings you need to master to get the correct exposure. Only the BARE BASIC settings, add judging dynamic range correctly, tone compensation, contrast, colour mode, white balance, exposure compensation, metering mode to basic settings and you will understand why your MFT renders better images than you can capture with the Canon 5D.
(Maybe you should consider changing brands, sell the 5D and try a Sony SLT you will be exhilarated with it, live view in the viewfinder.)

May I ask all you MFT promoters’ one question:
My fairy godmother left me a million bucks. I am very passionate about photography and am now looking to invest in a good all round camera, you know like shooting portraits, landscapes, a little wildlife and nature photography and maybe the odd wedding. I had a good look at a Sony A99 and the Sony RX1. I also like the Nikon D4. What would you guys suggest as a good investment in photographic gear?

[AB26]

André, the above does sound rather elitist, don't you think?
Any modern DSLR or MFT just needs to waved in the general direction of the subject and the rest is automatic . . as proved by your recent supermarket shot (just kidding, honest).

I guess it might, Ted. If there is no truth in it I will withdraw unconditionally. If I do, it will however make idiots out of all amateur photographers upgrading to FF gear. ( Shame they could have stayed with P&S, why upgrade????????????)

[AB26]

Wow! Guess I must have hit a nerve with Andre!

Hi Matt,

No nerve that you hit here but I think you really hit a nerve with Alan. I love this sort of debate.

Agreed you never suggested that MFT could be an upgrade from DSLR, guess that was Alan, something like why I am of the opinion MFT would be downgrading from DSLR.

Sorry my mind works a little different from the average normal individual. In my mind the opposite of UPGRADING is DOWNGRADING. Don’t know where I got that from??? Must be age catching up with me.

Yes Matt, I still enjoy shooting my Sony DSC, it is still an amazing camera. Guess a MFT will beat it hands down.

The bigger the sensor, the better the camera............!

[woof woof]

Alan, Alan, Alan why do you give me a stick to hit you with.

Believe me, you can't touch me

Good gear to invest in? I'd suggest a bog basic camera and a prime lens, stick it in manual and really learn the craft and stop fixating on the gear.

You could put this together for not a lot and it'll serve you very welll...

[xpatUSA]

I guess it might, Ted. If there is no truth in [the statement] I will withdraw unconditionally. If I do, it will however make idiots out of all amateur photographers upgrading to FF gear. ( Shame they could have stayed with P&S, why upgrade????????????)

How about the philosophy of "horses for courses" ? That would make it less necessary to continue to refer to"upgrading" and "downgrading" in terms of equipment aspiration. On other fora, there is also quite a flow (may I say sideways?) from DSLRs in the direction of MFT and in the direction of those other ones Like NEX ?, Fuji X?, Sigma DP Merrills, etc.

I myself am teetering, even as we speak, between 3 housebricks and a Panasonic GH1 which, now armed with a Leica Macro-Elmarit, is no slouch in the sharpness department - even though I also have the well-regarded Sigma 70mm f/2.8 Macro for the others.

[shreds]

This thread is of the calibre of Nikon v Canon.

[MattR]

This thread is of the calibre of Nikon v Canon.

To be honest, it's worse! I think I'll post a tape measure and these two can just compare that way!

[woof woof]

Trying to help isn't always the way forward but it takes time to realise

[Neelly]

I think people should stop feeding the troll

[thequacksoflife]

is a m43 a downgrade ?

in some instances yes. if you are serious about wildlife and sports photography. if you are a wedding tog then yes you probably do need a full frame dSLR.

I dumped my Nikon d300. most of my photography is travel these days and I love the lightness of the gear and ESPECIALLY the lenses. very handy when you are on a budget airline with their restrictive baggage limits.

the argument of dSLR's is of course that not all dSLR's are the same. hence someone like Hogan still uses Nikon Full Frame but uses an Olympus E-M5 instead of a DX.

Andre having used a Nikon D80 and D200 any of the current m43 models have MUCH MUCH better image quality. From images I have seen the 16mp sony sensor in the E-M5 and GH3 would be much better than the d300 and d90 as well. check out some of the sample images on imaging resource. and you'll see it does better than the 18mp canon have been using for a while in their APSC cameras.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...5/omd-em5A.HTM
wander down to image quality.....

that said if you have a budget and were in to wildlife (especially birds) then you are better off with a dSLR purely because of choice of lenses and the continous autofocus performance.

"horses for courses"

[jcuknz]

The reason I hold the APS-C in disgust and contempt is that it is a 1950 basic design with none of the operating improvements that my bridge camera incorporates ... even my original bridge camera designed around 2000 is ahead of most of todays DSLRs and I have moved past it. True there are limitations and I really wish that R&D of the bridge had gone into getting a larger sensor instead of super zooms and tromboning lenses. IMO development stopped with the Panasonic FZ50, as I stopped 'upgrading' too .... untril I found an MFT G3 and the 14-140 lens which in some respects has me back with the original bridge but with the compensation of a larger sensor. I was looking at the D800 today and thanked my lucky stars I didn't want to spend NZ3.5T on just a body which is so 'LARGE" URRRGH .... and I doubt if it has live view ... so behind the times. But no doubt it appeals to those living in the past and for sure turns out fabulous results in good hands ... I doubt if many bad hands spend that much