Getting an itch again - Compact, 4/3rds cameras

[Donald]

Up to now I've been very content with my DSLR bodies. What, of course, they don't lend themselves to is being slipped into your pocket when you're taking the dog out for a walk, or when you're just generally wandering around in the countryside or in town.

For my ongoing landscape work the DSLRs will always be the lead tool. But, with my getting involved in studying photography at an academic level, starting to push myself out of my comfort zones and being exposed to a lot of new ideas about photography, the idea of having a 4/3rds that I can just carry everywhere, is beginning to take hold.

So, this is aimed at those of you already using one.

Am not asking for your recommendations or your comparisons one v another. But would welcome your comments about what you have, why you chose it and what you consider to be the pros and cons.

Just for info - The Fujifilm X100T and Panasonic DMC LX100 are but two that are catching my eye.

[John 2]

Donald, the X100T is due for a refresh and it might be worth waiting to either pickup that camera as the price drops or the new version if your thinking that way. Also, Fuji have just launched the X70 which is truly pocketable. The only question mark in my mind is whether I could be happy with a fixed lens quite as wide as that. BTW, both cameras have full APSC size sensors not Micro 4/3rds. This is a hands on review of the X70:

http://bjornmoerman.blogspot.de/2016...-my-photo.html

It would also be worth keeping an eye on these two sites for future news:

http://www.scoop.it/t/fuji-x-pro1?page=1

http://www.fujirumors.com/

[Manfred M]

Donald - mFT is a format that only Olympus and Panasonic support.

I have the Panasonic GX7 and it's the only camera I have with me in India. I have two lenses with it, the 14-140mm and the 100-300mm. Honestly, the only advantages a mFT has over a APS-C or FF camera are size and weight. If it mattered to me, it is also capable of shooting with electronic shutter only (no noise). Decent enough for things that are not moving too much, but the contrast detect autofocus is simply too slow for action photography.

I would never have considered the LX100 because of the limitations in the focal length of the lens; it's okay on the long side, but I would want a minimum focal length of 14mm to give me a decent wide angle range too.

[DanK]

Donald,

I recently went through exactly this decision and ended up with a Panasonic Lumix LX100. The bottom line, IMHO: if you want something you really can carry with you almost all of the time, the question is what compromises you want to make. I’ll explain my decision, as you may have very different preferences.

First, I wanted something that I really could carry everywhere and could stick in a jacket pocket. That ruled out all interchangeable-lens MFTs.

Second, if I couldn’t have interchangeable lenses, I wanted a zoom for flexibility, but not a superzoom with the optical costs that imposes. That ruled out some of the better small cameras that have primes, like a few Fujis.

Third, I wanted an EVF. After decades of using a viewfinder, I find framing with the LCD awkward, and it doesn’t work well in bright light. That ruled out a lot of the really small cameras.

Fourth was the choice between really compact cameras that can fit into a shirt pocket and those that are a little bigger. By this point, I had the Sony RX100 III and the LX 100 picked as strong contenders in these two groups. The Sony has a smaller body, and the lens almost fully retracts. The Lumix does not have a fully retracting lens.

Here’s what I saw as the pros and cons:

--Portability: Sony wins, as you can slip it into smaller pockets. The Lumix fits in a jacket pocket but not a shirt pocket.

--Sensor: MFT in the Lumix, 1 inch in the Sony

--Resolution: Sony is roughly 20 MP, Lumix roughly 12 MP at 3:2 aspect ratio. The tests I saw indicate that this is reflected in resolution, if you pixel-peep.

--Ergonomics: no contest (for me). The Lumix is easier to handle because of its slightly larger size and built in grips (front and back). The controls on the Lumix are designed for people who want manual control. You don’t need menus to switch between Av, Tv, or M settings.

The ergonomics tipped the balance for me, and I bought the Lumix. The two are roughly the same price, but there was a short-term special at B&H that saved me a good bit of money.

So, how well does it work? I haven’t had it long enough to say much. It really is small enough that I carry it often in my briefcase and frequently stick it in a pocket. Based on my very limited experience, the images are quite good for a small camera, particularly at low ISOs, but they certainly are not as crisp and detailed as those I get from my 5DIII with a good lens, and they therefore seem to need somewhat more sharpening. I think they would be fine for modest-sized prints.

Here's one test shot, after processing the raw file in LR:



For the full-size jpg, go here.

Dan

[xpatUSA]

Am not asking for your recommendations or your comparisons one v another. But would welcome your comments about what you have, why you chose it and what you consider to be the pros and cons.

Just for info - The Fujifilm X100T and Panasonic DMC LX100 are but two that are catching my eye.

As to the Panasonic LX series, we have the LX7:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx7

Not m4/3 and not interchangeable lenses. The attractions were:

Awesome f/1.4 Leica lens.
Aperture ring on the lens.
Raw available.
Tolerable flash.

I had Panasonic G1 and GH1 before, so knew what to expect, operation-wise.

[Shadowman]

I have the Olympus EPL1, at first glance I was concerned that the length of the lenses would be a strain on the camera body; but after doing a bit of research on weight of lenses my initial concerns were alleviated. My camera came with two kit lenses (14-42mm and 45-150mm) and that made for another plus in the purchase. I like the compactness/lightness of the camera/lens combo and the setup really works well in congested shooting environs. Whenever I visit a local fair, the micro 4/3rds is always with me. Quality of the shots are good, noise can be an issue but I've captured some good lowlight shots which I've posted on this forum over the years. The autofocus system isn't the fastest but depending on the features of your particular camera there are usually workarounds, my camera has a DIS-mode (digital image stabilization) feature that provides additional stabilization. My camera doesn't have a viewfinder but you can purchase an attachment.

[Venser]

I went all-in on Olympus.

When I first got into photography I was Nikon all the way. Had the D700, and an arsenal of lenses; 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 VR II, 24 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4, and many more. I used them all for years.

Fast forward to when the Olympus OM-D E-M5 first came out. It had a lot of buzz and so I jumped on the hype train to see what it's all about. Grabbed the camera along with the Panasonic 20 f/1.7 and Panasonic 14mm f/2.5. Two weeks later I was in Europe on vacation and I only brought the Olympus along. Was really happy with the results and started to invest a little more in the camera.

When Olympus finally came around to making the 14-40 f/2.8 and announced the 7-14 f/2.8 and 40-150 f/2.8, I decided to drop all my Nikon gear entirely and switched systems. I rarely print anything over 18"x24" so I don't need more resolution than the cameras offer.

I currently own the E-M1, E-M5 II, these lenses 7-14/2.8 | 12-40/2.8 | 40-150/2.8 | 12/2.0 | 17/1.8 | 25/1.8 | 45/1.8 | 60/2.8 | 75/1.8 | MC-14.

I had a Fuji X100s in there as well, but sold it after a vacation. The camera was fantastic except in one department, auto-focusing on anything that wasn't stationary. It was the only camera I brought one vacation; I had my kids and I definitely missed shots that my Nikon or Olympus would have captured.

I mainly shoot street photography. I dabble in other sorts, but street is my calling. The flip screen and touch focusing on the OM-D series is solid gold in this regard. I find it easier to shoot people on the subway and whatnot with the Olympus than I did with the Nikon.

Pros:
- size (E-M5 II, 17/1.8, and 45/1.8 easily fits in one coat pocket.)
- cost
- weight
- can still do everything in the studio I could with my Nikon. (Fire camera remotely using Pocket Wizards, strobes and all)
- faster sync curtain than my old D700.
- stabilization of IBIS really does work, so the f/1.8 lenses are "faster" than advertised.

Cons:
- I couldn't find any, hence I sold off everything even though I didn't need the money. Just didn't see the point of taking up three times the space at home for equipment I was never going to use again. I never shot anything with razor thin depth of focus, but that could an issue for some.
- My Gitzo tripod with Acra-tech ball head looks like overkill with my current camera.

[Mike Buckley]

I recommend that this be made a sticky thread, as it has barely begun and already contains a wealth of information that makes it a valuable resource for anyone considering whether the format might be a good fit. As an example, I have no current interest in anything other than a DSLR. But if the time comes that I do have even the smallest interest in a smaller format, I would want to review this thread.

[Inkanyezi]

I've used µ4/3 almost exclusively for several years now, and I think it does anything you'd expect of a decent camera. First I had a Lumix G1, which was later replaced by an Olympus OMD E-M5. It had nothing to do with image quality, just that my old camera decided to retire, and it was convenient to upgrade a bit.

The only caveat I see is that if you would go around with the camera all day and look frequently through the finder, an extra battery is a boon.

And the leaf-thin DOF is achievable. Actually with the Metabones Speed booster many lenses of other makes will function also with AF, but maybe not with the speed of original systems. Effectively, a speed booster will make the camera comparable to APS-C in terms of DOF. http://www.metabones.com/products/?c=speed-booster

A 50 mm f/1.4 becomes a 32 mm f/0.9 with the 0.64 booster, equivalent to a 65 mm f/1,8 regarding DOF for full frame.

If I would change systems from DSLR to µ4/3, I would definitely see if i could use any of my old glass as well.

[John 2]

Update.

Donald, couldn't find this at the time of my first post.

http://jonasraskphotography.com/2016...lm-x70-review/

[Manfred M]

I recommend that this be made a sticky thread, as it has barely begun and already contains a wealth of information that makes it a valuable resource for anyone considering whether the format might be a good fit. As an example, I have no current interest in anything other than a DSLR. But if the time comes that I do have even the smallest interest in a smaller format, I would want to review this thread.

Mike - the problem with turning this type of thread into a sticky is that the information can go out of date so quickly as new models are introduced and old ones dropped. While DSLRs are a fairly mature product, the mirror less product line is still all over the place with fairly rapid product cycles as you get into the smaller bodies with fixed lenses.

[DEAN01]

Donald,

I too went through this a few years ago. I was looking for a camera system light enough to carry every where. I picked the Fuji XPro1, mainly for the optical viewfinder and retro characteristics. Not carrying the DSLR has made a difference in my photography--for the better IMO. Best of luck with your search and your expanding photographic horizon!

[Dave Humphries]

I recommend that this be made a sticky thread, as it has barely begun and already contains a wealth of information that makes it a valuable resource for anyone considering whether the format might be a good fit.

Mike - the problem with turning this type of thread into a sticky is that the information can go out of date so quickly as new models are introduced and old ones dropped.

I have added some tags from the Tag Cloud to assist finding it again Mike.


Speed booster

I haven't got my head around the concept (or physical properties) of those 'speed boosters' Urban has linked, so I looked for more info....

Here's some background and a first impressions review on DPReview. (which I have hardly started reading yet)

DPReview's explanation - which is simple to follow - is to think of them as a 'reverse teleconverter' (TC) - most of us know that these (TCs) sit between the camera and lens and 'extend focal length' (sic) but make the picture dimmer - because they stretch the image circle cast by the lens over a bigger area ('overflowing' the sensor), so that reduces the angle of view and light hitting sensor.

The 'speed booster' (SB) also sits between the camera and lens, but it 'concentrates' the image circle on to a smaller area, making it brighter and supposedly decreasing the focal length. Those paying attention will realise that this cannot be without limitations; the lens has to have been designed to produce a larger image circle than the sensor you are intending to use it on now (to avoid vignetting). It also helps if there is extra distance between where the lens used to focus and the sensor - as there is when adapting FX or DX lenses to m4/3 (aka MFT) camera bodies.

Like I say, I haven't got my head round how this can work yet.

Cheers, Dave

[Donald]

Absolutely wonderful feedback, folks. Thank you all. Haven't made a decision yet, but am now at least much better informed. Any other contributions over the next few days (from the time of this post) will be welcome.

[Black Pearl]

Friends of mine have just changed their second DSLR system for an Olympus OM-D with the pancake zoom and a single prime for the convenience of the tiny farm factor and I have to so its a little beauty. You probably know I dumped all my DSLR gear for a Fuji X recently but its not tiny like the OM-D but has the advantage of a bigger sensor - you will still have that with your DSLR so not an issue.

The OM-D is a real eye opener. Build quality is good, the controls are nice, its fast, the IBIS is astonishing and the lenses are excellent. Image quality is very good if I'm honest, yes if you push the ISO it falls down faster than a bigger format but at typical sensitivities its more than good enough. I know a couple of big time Nikon shooters who have an OM-D system for the size and they all sing its praise, that and I've seen the stuff they produce which if they hadn't said what it was from I'd never have known.

As to the X100T - now I have always loved that camera. Two work colleagues bought the original X100 when it very first launched, both still have them and both still use them. I love the fixed lens, the sensor is amazing, the Fuji colours are out of this world, its very quiet and the viewfinder is a work of art. Thats would be my choice but I know I could live with the fixed lenses as I've used their X100 cameras on multiple occasions and for extended periods. I wouldn't worry about the T being replaced, its not due any time soon and has nearly all the latest tweaks already.

[wilgk]

Indeed, what a wonderful response to a great question.
As it happens, Fashionista & I are going on an adventure to New York in the Fall this year! (See I sound American already)
Whilst she shops in Victoria Secret, I am hoping to photograph tha autumn colours of the parks & I've been seriously wondering about the sz & weight of the DSLR.
I will read thoroughly everyone's replies to Donald.

[pnodrog]

Indeed, what a wonderful response to a great question.
As it happens, Fashionista & I are going on an adventure to New York in the Fall this year! (See I sound American already)
Whilst she shops in Victoria Secret, I am hoping to photograph tha autumn colours of the parks & I've been seriously wondering about the sz & weight of the DSLR.
I will read thoroughly everyone's replies to Donald.

Man up Kay - a DSLR will still be lighter than Fashionista's shopping bags.......

[Greg Lehey]

This is going to be a "me too", but the difference is that I moved from 4/3 DSLRs (Olympus E-510, then E-30) to micro 4/3 (initially Olympus E-M1). I've always thought that SLRs passed their use-by date some years back, but I wasn't prepared for how much better the image quality of the new camera was. If Olympus were to come out with an E-7 DSLR, as some people still hope, they would have a hard job convincing me to buy it.

The big issues quoted with mirrorless cameras relate mainly to autofocus. Almost everything else is definitely better. But I haven't had significant issues with autofocus on the E-M1. It was better, even with 4/3 lenses, than the E-30. About the only issue I have (and this won't upset Donald) is that the m4/3 lenses are optimized more for size than aperture. As a result, I continue to buy 4/3 lenses that were designed for DSLRs (28-70mm (35 mm equivalent) f/2 zoom anybody?).

I was happy enough that last year I bought an Olympus E-PM2 for my wife. This is the smallest model they make, and to my surprise it has just about all the features that the E-M1 has. About the only issue is that, due to the size, the menu system is rather more difficult to use. And yes, the autofocus isn't as good.

For my ongoing landscape work the DSLRs will always be the lead tool.

Always is a long time. I'd be more interested in when you make the switch for good.

Greg

[DanK]

I don't know if this is a useful observation, but in case it is, I think this thread has developed into two entirely different discussions.

Donald started this, not by asking about the pros and cons of switching to mirrorless or 4/3, but by noting that he is thinking about:

the idea of having a 4/3rds that I can just carry everywhere

Consistent with that, he noted the Fuji X100 and the Panasonic LX100 as possibilities. Both lack interchangeable lenses, and they clearly are not a substitute for a DSLR--let alone the fabulous DSLR that Donald recently purchased.

The second discussion is about the pros and cons of switching to MFT from DSLRs, or of using MFT ILCs as a substitute under some circumstances. That is also a topic that generates a lot of interest here (and that I would be very interested, if I hadn't already maxed out my equipment purchases), but it involves entirely different equipment and tradeoffs.

[Shadowman]

I don't know if this is a useful observation, but in case it is, I think this thread has developed into two entirely different discussions.

Donald started this, not by asking about the pros and cons of switching to mirrorless or 4/3, but by noting that he is thinking about:



Consistent with that, he noted the Fuji X100 and the Panasonic LX100 as possibilities. Both lack interchangeable lenses, and they clearly are not a substitute for a DSLR--let alone the fabulous DSLR that Donald recently purchased.

The second discussion is about the pros and cons of switching to MFT from DSLRs, or of using MFT ILCs as a substitute under some circumstances. That is also a topic that generates a lot of interest here (and that I would be very interested, if I hadn't already maxed out my equipment purchases), but it involves entirely different equipment and tradeoffs.

I think choice of lens needed would have been resolved if you started with a DSLR, the move to (if you decide) MFT will make the transition easier as you'll have worked out the focal length issues. As I stated in post #6, my MFT came with two kit lenses covering 14-150mm range, I've only purchased two other lenses since owning, 20mm f/1.7pancake and 70-300mm. That's a total of four lenses and no immediate desire to purchase any more, on the other hand I have six OEM DSLR lenses and two specialty lenses and until I learned to control my "gotta have it" urges I probably would have added another OEM lens.