Micro 4/3, seriously worth a look

[MattR]

Just wanted to share my positive transition from 35mm SLR to M43. I got an Olympus E-P3 with the twin kit and I have to say I'm blown away by the image quality, portability and system costs. I'm only an enthusiastic amateur not a pro. If you are considering a move don't disregard this very impressive system.

[Shadowman]

Just wanted to share my positive transition from 35mm SLR to M43. I got an Olympus E-P3 with the twin kit and I have to say I'm blown away by the image quality, portability and system costs. I'm only an enthusiastic amateur not a pro. If you are considering a move don't disregard this very impressive system.

Already have with the Olympus E-PL1, has its limitations but bonuses as well. Haven't abandoned the DSLR though.

[AB26]

Matt, downgrading from a DSLR to any other format - not for me, thank you.

[inkista]

Love my m4/3 gear, but I've hung onto my Canon gear as well. I know a lot of folks can switch, but I tend to shoot all over the board, and there are still things my dSLRs are better suited for than my little G3, or simply lenses I don't want to duplicate. I do haul the G3 out more than any of the others simply from a convenience/portability point of view. It's replaced a much largeer amount of my dSLR shooting than I anticipated when I got it initially to be my "go light" system.

Andre--waiting for the full-frame Sony MILC, are you?

I will say that realizing I could shove the G3 and five mft lenses into the Retrospective 5 that would be bursting to the seams with just my 5Dii, 135L and 24-105L was an eye-opener. That and the fact that the mft+5 lenses weighed less than half as much. The entire bag is about 5 lbs, with the bag itself weighing in around 2.5lbs.

[Neelly]

+ 1 from me, sold all the Canon gear (7D & some L lenses) and got an OMD plus lenses. Quality to my mind on A3+ prints, is indistinguishable. While the gear is just so much easier to carry it gets taken out lots more. Wins all round

[jcuknz]

This thread reminds me of the rapturish state of mind of somebody after they, "a film type", were given a Canon G
As I was when I discovered digital earlier on.
I have dumped my DSLR now I have a GH ... it was rarely used anyway. Two less batteries to remember to keep topped up

[woof woof]

Matt, downgrading from a DSLR to any other format - not for me, thank you.

I'd be interested to know if you've tried MFT and if so why it'd be a downgrade from a DSLR.

I have a 5D and some nice lenses and an early MFT camera and some nice lenses and to be honest at low to middle ISO settings I find that no one can reliably tell my MFT images from my 5D images.

Whenever I supspect that kit isn't good enough I compare what I can achieve with it to what others are achieving and I often find it a sobering exercise

A MFT camera fitted with a nice lens should be able to hold its own with even a good DSLR body and lens combination at all but the largest image sizes (my own little tests stopped at A3,) most extreme pixel peeping and most extreme ISO settings.

[wlou]

Just wanted to share my positive transition from 35mm SLR to M43. I got an Olympus E-P3 with the twin kit and I have to say I'm blown away by the image quality, portability and system costs. I'm only an enthusiastic amateur not a pro. If you are considering a move don't disregard this very impressive system.

Humm, lets see the pictures!

[Shadowman]

I'd be interested to know if you've tried MFT and if so why it'd be a downgrade from a DSLR.

I have a 5D and some nice lenses and an early MFT camera and some nice lenses and to be honest at low to middle ISO settings I find that no one can reliably tell my MFT images from my 5D images.

Whenever I supspect that kit isn't good enough I compare what I can achieve with it to what others are achieving and I often find it a sobering exercise

A MFT camera fitted with a nice lens should be able to hold its own with even a good DSLR body and lens combination at all but the largest image sizes (my own little tests stopped at A3,) most extreme pixel peeping and most extreme ISO settings.

I actually looked at the MFT as an upgrade from a point and shoot, and certain bridge cameras, especially when coupled with the 17 or 20mm pancake lens or interchangeable. Add to that the RAW format you don't get with P & S and the appeal increases further.

[Neelly]

Humm, lets see the pictures!

Here is what a competent photographer can do with an OMD http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/...k-hampshire-2/

[HenkB]

Absolutely worth a look. I'm currently playing with a m4/3 camera. Saturday morning I was shooting a D600 and, that afternoon, an OM-D. The IQ of the OM-D is astounding for its size and heft (or lack thereof). Too large for a pocket but feather light hung on a shoulder - at least relative to a DSLR. For a walkabout camera, this has immense appeal. There's stuff I can't make it do yet that I can persuade the D600 to. Still, I find the ability to get clean detail out of shadows at base iso particularly impressive. A right little cousin to the D600 in that! A good friend has been able to move from D700 to OM-D for concert photography (classical) on the strength of its exposure performance, capitalizing on the silence of the capture and the relative inconspicuousness of the camera. After this little play period I may be hooked, at least for discretionary photography.

[AB26]

I'd be interested to know if you've tried MFT and if so why it'd be a downgrade from a DSLR.

You really think I would have gone from a Sony bridge to DSLR, skipping MFT, for no reason?
Would it be upgrading going from a 42 inch LED to a 32 inch LCD?

Maybe I am just a little confused as to the reason why some people would buy a Leica S2. Believe me if I had the cash, I would do so to.

[Manfred M]

I had a very serious look at the mFT cameras before I bought my first DSLR, and at the time the main reason I did not go that way was that the format was quite new and the number of lenses available was still questionable.

Skip forward a couple of years, and I bought a high end, interchangable lens mFT video camera (Panasonic AF100) and own the Lumix 14-140mm and Lumix 100-300mm lens. Last year (or was that earlier on this year), I had a very hard look at getting more use out of the lenses by picking up a mFT body and got some suggestions from some of the members here.

Bottom line is that I still do not own a mFT still camera. I'm still thinking about it, but more as a "B" camera to back up my video camera and the occasional still camera. The issue with lens availability is no longer a concern, as there is a decent selection out there now. I still am not in love with the viewfinder, and found that I would want the GH3; but I can't see dropping that much money on a whim. I might have a look at the G5, when it arrives at my local dealer.

My problem is that I got a D800 last year and am spoilt; great handling and outstanding image quality. I really don't completely like the GH3 layout or the way it feels when I hold it. The noise above ISO 800 is nothing to get too excited; but then, that is not unexpected from a smaller sensor, but the competition does better with their APS-C sensors. Frankly, while I see the size / weight advantage; I already own a D90 and the lightweight kit lenses, so have a reasonably smaller (not as small as a mFT for sure) and lighter weight solution at hand.

[woof woof]

You really think I would have gone from a Sony bridge to DSLR, skipping MFT, for no reason?
Would it be upgrading going from a 42 inch LED to a 32 inch LCD?

Maybe I am just a little confused as to the reason why some people would buy a Leica S2. Believe me if I had the cash, I would do so to.

Your reply makes little sense to me. What I asked is why you thought that MFT is a downgrade and I was hoping to give constructive help but if your views are firm then fair enough.

What I will say to you is that I've been taking pictures for over forty years and at the moment I'm delighted with the image quality I get from my 5D and my bag full of nice expensive big fat lenses. I'm also delighted with the image quality I get from my compact and light first generation G1 and at all but the highest ISO settings my G1 images can be lost amongst my 5D images and no one can reliably pick them out either on screen or printed. I fully expect newer MFT cameras to do even better.

As I said previously, whenever I suspect that kit isn't good enough I compare what I can achieve with it to what others are achieving and I often find it a sobering exercise. I respectfully suggest that you'd do well to do likewise

Seriously worth a look? Yes.

[jcuknz]

Well Alan WoofWoof I went from bridge, DSLR's only appeal to me was the ILC angle to use bellows and extension tubes from film days, to MFT with first a G3 and after the x12 of the bridge found the kit lens hopelessly restrictive so got the 14-140 which equates to the lens of my original bridge, the Nikon5700. Subsequently I have moved to a GH2 ... the GH3 was about three weeks late in coming out or I would have it. I think that AB26 is hopelessly biased But we do all have our personal requirements in the gear we want to use ... and Manfred you already have the essential part of the rig with the lenses and a G3 is running at $170-$250 these days ... hardly an expense to cause hesitation The G3 is a great camera but I wanted the knobs of the GH ... silly me US$700 gone .... but I enjoy working with it even when it plays tricks on me like switching off the LCD when I move my left hand over the eyepiece to work the trigger ... my right hand was the subject matter

[xpatUSA]

I have three early Sigma DSLR's of the 3.4MP house-brick variety. Quality images, but needing muscle-power and dedication to create. Bought a Panasonic GH1 body and the G1 14-45mm kit lens, ostensibly for Wifey's eBay stuff . . quality images with barely any effort, almost gives me a guilty feeling! A quick snap, ISO 400, built-in flash, 1/30 sec hand-held:



Now waiting for delivery of a Panasonic Leica Elmarit 45mm macro lens and seriously wondering about those Sigmas . . .

[AB26]

Your reply makes little sense to me. What I asked is why you thought that MFT is a downgrade and I was hoping to give constructive help but if your views are firm then fair enough.

Hi Alan,

Comparing or even suggesting that a MFT camara can compare favorably with a DSLR is like comparing an Opel Corsa OPC to a Mercedes 250 CDi. The Opel might be a very nice hot hatch but it is simply not in the same class as a Merc.

Those whom believe that a MFT camera can outperform or compare to a DSLR are a little like a youngster in an Opel OPC pulling up next to an old man in his Merc 250 CDi, at a red light. The youngster revs up the Opel and makes lots of noise but when the light goes green the old man just puts his foot down and as the Opel gets smaller in the rear view mirror of the Mercedes the old man only smiles.

Now, you want me to trade a Merc 250 CDi for an Opel Corsa OPC? Does it make sense?

I might have a look at an Opel OPC but you think I will buy one?

[inkista]

One was taken wit a 5DmkII and Leica glass. The other with an mft camera and lens. Both lenses were at 90mm film-equivalency.





One was taken on my G3 with the kit lens the other on a 5DmkII with the 24-105L. (Hey, it's fair. The 24-105L is the kit lens for the 5DMkII).

[vroom vroom vroom.] I may be deluded, but I'm happy.

I don't need my mft gear to "outperform" my 5DMkII. I just need it to be good enough to make me happy and portable. MFT is loads past "good enough." You may like lugging 20+ lbs of gear around. I do not. Is my 5DMkII still better at some things? You bet. That's why I held onto it. Ditto my 50D. But my G3 is the camera that goes with me everywhere, because it (AND FIVE LENSES) only add 2.5 lbs. to a bag. My 5DmkII+24-105L is already >3 lbs.

Oh. And the 5DMkII +24-105 combo cost me roughly $3000. The G3 and 14-42 kit? $450.

Performance can be measured in ways beyond just blowing people off the line.

[woof woof]

Hi Alan,

Comparing or even suggesting that a MFT camara can compare favorably with a DSLR is like comparing an Opel Corsa OPC to a Mercedes 250 CDi. The Opel might be a very nice hot hatch but it is simply not in the same class as a Merc.

Those whom believe that a MFT camera can outperform or compare to a DSLR are a little like a youngster in an Opel OPC pulling up next to an old man in his Merc 250 CDi, at a red light. The youngster revs up the Opel and makes lots of noise but when the light goes green the old man just puts his foot down and as the Opel gets smaller in the rear view mirror of the Mercedes the old man only smiles.

Now, you want me to trade a Merc 250 CDi for an Opel Corsa OPC? Does it make sense?

I might have a look at an Opel OPC but you think I will buy one?

I'm not suggesting, I'm stating a fact... A MFT camera when fitted with a nice lens will produce images that can be easily lost amongst images taken with a quality DSLR and a nice lens at all but the highest ISO's and at all but the largest print sizes.

Testing this statement of mine is easy enough if you have the gear and are prepared to stand the cost of producing the images. I've been through the process to satisfy myself and I've included others to gather their views and my findings were that no one could pick out MFT images at anything better than chance.

You don't have to take my word for this, all you have to do is Google your way to example images taken with any gear you are interested in and if you do that I'm sure you'll find some lovely images taken with MFT kit that could easily be lost amongst images taken with, for example a high end Canon APS-C or even FF camera. Try it, I dare you...

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



And I've had some nice cars in my time too

[Adrian]

Pointless debate. Cameras are just tools. Practically all lenses have been sharp for years. Some prefer one tool others another: functionality ad utility is much the same.

I happen to like handmade Japanese chef's knives. I would be deluded to think that they are really discernibly more functional than a basic Global at a tenth of the price.

Some like to write with a Mont Blanc rollerball costing £300 each. The writing is indistinguishable from a £2 rollerball made in China.

Some tools are a bit better or a bit more suitable for specific purpose.

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.