The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Are there any new m4/3rds cams with real improvements in sight?

Godfrey

Well-known member
... I'll use a car analogy throughout to show what I mean. It is obviously defective by design,
...
as cars have way more horsepower now, they require stabilisation systems, anti skid, anti blocking brakes, and lots more that I don't even know. ...

Yet, the interface is quite simple.

... the Panasonic LC-1 has a very elegant system to do the basic operations...
The car analogy isn't apropos. "Way more horsepower" does not by itself "require" stabilization systems, anti-skid, anti-lock brakes or any of the other modern conveniences, and all of those things do not require (or permit!) any customization by the user to do their job. Customization by the user would be deadly in most cases. Modern cars only rarely have more horsepower than cars of the past anyway, at any reasonable equivalent price point.

If you're talking Formula 1 cars, the situation is different but that's not the automotive technology that most people can really use or understand either. And by and large the operator (driver) doesn't adjust anything at all ... the user interface is a complex team of specialists who listen to the driver and read the dataloggers ... they adjust both mechanical and electronic control systems to suit the specialized needs of reducing time around the track, a single dimensional metric. The interface for those adjustments is FAR from simple.

The steering wheel, brake and gas pedals remain simple ... so do the controls for aperture, shutter speed and shutter release on most cameras. Crappy cameras have crappy controls for these things.

I'm well aware of the excellent Panasonic LC1 control system ... I have the L1 and use it a lot, same design. There are some interesting annoyances with it, but overall it is quite nice and reminiscent of many older cameras. Again, I think that's really what the issue is.

But that doesn't mean other control systems are not also excellent. For instance, the Olympus E-1 has a superbly placed and intuitive feel front/back body wheel design with focusing ring on the lenses, all configureable for your preferences as to which one controls what in each mode. You can see at a glance on the top-mounted display precisely what exposure, focus, and other mode settings are current as well as current exposure settings. In the viewfinder too.

What's the solution to cameras with crappy controls? Don't buy those cameras. Period. There are plenty of choices out there, from crappy to superb. Pick the one that works for you.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I want a micro L1.

And a 14mm prime.

And to be 6'3".


I'll settle for two out of three.
:ROTFL:

I want a 12-60 zoom
I want a weathersealed body (camera that is, mine is already tolerably water-resistant).
I'd like to be 25 again

. . . . and I'd settle for any two (actually, I'd settle for one if it were the last).
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Don't you mean you don't think it is?
I thought it was rather good!
Do you qualify every opinion you state with "I think ..." ? Qualifying one's speech constantly when writing or speaking is poor English. The fact that I'm stating an opinion is obvious from the context of the discussion.

For reasons stated, my opinion is that the analogy is not apropos at all.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I want a micro L1.
And a 14mm prime.
And to be 6'3".

I'll settle for two out of three.
So do I, on (a) and (b), although I suspect the 7-14 zoom would do me better at that end of the focal length range.

I'm happy with 6', however. It's nice to look up to someone once in a while. :)
 

RonSmith

Member
So do I, on (a) and (b), although I suspect the 7-14 zoom would do me better at that end of the focal length range.

I'm happy with 6', however. It's nice to look up to someone once in a while. :)
And yet, it becomes tiresome on a regular basis, says the 5'6" guy.


The 7-14 is indeed awesome, even at my height.
 
P

PeterLeyssens

Guest
Hi Godfrey,

Let's skip the car part and move straight to the photo bit.

The steering wheel, brake and gas pedals remain simple ... so do the controls for aperture, shutter speed and shutter release on most cameras. Crappy cameras have crappy controls for these things.
I disagree. The Panasonic LX3 is not a crappy camera, yet, I had to use a little stick to change the diaphragm in A mode. The fact that DOF wide open is already very deep is a bad excuse for a bad interface. At my first attempt to use an E-P1, I also thought the thumb wheel and the wheel around the 4-way controller were not the best, but I'll refrain from calling both the E-P1 as well as its controls crappy until I used it more.


But that doesn't mean other control systems are not also excellent. For instance, the Olympus E-1 (skipping the good example for brevity)

What's the solution to cameras with crappy controls? Don't buy those cameras. Period. There are plenty of choices out there, from crappy to superb. Pick the one that works for you.
Generally speaking, you're right. If you look at smaller cameras, you're not.
I wasn't going to skip the E-420 and get an E-3 just because the controls are in a better place: the E-3 nearly weighs as much as any OM body with the 90/f2.0 macro lens, which I consider to be a lot to lug around. Size is no excuse: all OM bodies are smaller than the E-420, yet, their controls are much better. User interface design just isn't the primary focus of camera vendors anymore: featuritis is, because "it sells" when you're able to brag about 3D sweep panoramas, but not when your camera is just easy to use for its purpose.


Peter.
 
P

PeterLeyssens

Guest
I want a 12-60 zoom
I want a weathersealed body (camera that is, mine is already tolerably water-resistant).
I'd like to be 25 again
+1 for the weathersealed body. And a good portrait prime (45/f1.4 ?). And enough cash to get either the 7-14 or the 9-18 to go with an E-P2 with viewfinder !


Peter.
 
P

PeterLeyssens

Guest
Oh, except that the E-P2 would be replaced by the weathersealed body, of course !
 

apicius9

New member
I want a micro L1.

And a 14mm prime.

And to be 6'3".


I'll settle for two out of three.
LOL. To match my weight, I should be around 9'6", so I think a m4/3 camera sized like the LX3 with a sensor equal or better than the GH1 and built-in EVF is more realistic :) I'd even waive the whole video schnickschnack.

Stefan
 
P

PeterLeyssens

Guest
Aside from all speculations, I'm glad to say that I just placed my first µ43 order: a brand new E-P1 + 17/f2.8 + viewfinder for an incredibly good price (about the same as a good price on an LX3). That should settle the body for a while, except if the weather sealed E-P2 comes out at €500 :ROTFL:

If I like the camera as much as I hope, a 20/f1.7 and 9-18 are possible future purchases. And back to topic: I'd really like a fast portrait prime, too. I read the comparison of OM lenses on the E-P1 and my 50/f1.4 and f1.8 would "ghost" wide open. Also C-mount lenses are frequently not optimal. A native lens is always the best option, if it exists.


Peter.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I disagree. The Panasonic LX3 is not a crappy camera, yet, I had to use a little stick to change the diaphragm in A mode. The fact that DOF wide open is already very deep is a bad excuse for a bad interface. At my first attempt to use an E-P1, I also thought the thumb wheel and the wheel around the 4-way controller were not the best, but I'll refrain from calling both the E-P1 as well as its controls crappy until I used it more.
...
Generally speaking, you're right. If you look at smaller cameras, you're not.
I wasn't going to skip the E-420 and get an E-3 just because the controls are in a better place: the E-3 nearly weighs as much as any OM body with the 90/f2.0 macro lens, which I consider to be a lot to lug around. Size is no excuse: all OM bodies are smaller than the E-420, yet, their controls are much better. User interface design just isn't the primary focus of camera vendors anymore: featuritis is, because "it sells" when you're able to brag about 3D sweep panoramas, but not when your camera is just easy to use for its purpose.
LOL! I'm exercising my right to hyperbole, and my lack of restraint. ;-)

To me a crappy camera is a camera I can't be bothered to work with, regardless of how good a photograph it can make. There are tons of crappy cameras that make excellent photographs, I've owned several of them. EG:

Contax G2 :: Remarkable lenses, superb build, wonderful meter and it just about drove me crazy the way the controls worked in operation. Crappy camera.

Olympus C8080WZ :: Amazing lens and JPEG engine, awful viewfinder, miserable slow raw write time, absolutely unusable controls. Crappy camera.

Panasonic LX1 :: Great lens, good features, made a lot of excellent photographs, but hard to hold, fiddly controls, annoyed me with poor sensitivity. Crappy camera.

I could go on, but you probably get my drift. Even the LC1/L1, as delightful as the overall design is, have quirks that annoy me occasionally but they're not so annoying as to make me eager to sell them and move on.

(I had Olympus OM1 and OM2n cameras: liked them overall but didn't like their ergonomics much: they didn't fit my hands well and the viewfinders had insufficient eye relief. But they didn't annoy me enough to qualify as "crappy", I was sad to sell them but the Nikon FM and FE2 did better for me ... ;-)

It's a personal judgement call as to what qualifies as a "crappy camera". Whether it's control ergonomics, size, overall responsiveness, etc ... there can be all kinds of reasons. Buy it, try it, move on if it's crappy, work with it if it's not. Period.

BTW, I see you've gotten a Pen digital and were talking about portrait lenses. At present, the top of the class on that is the Macro-Elmarit-DG 45mm f/2.8 ASPH OIS. While there might be a faster lens that works well, I doubt anything's going to surpass it by much in overall practical usability or quality. (I do like using both the Olympus macros and the Konica 40 on the G1, each lens has its unique character.) It's not cheap but it's well worth it, I plan to get one eventually too.
 

jonoslack

Active member
LOL! I'm exercising my right to hyperbole, and my lack of restraint. ;-)
Godfrey . . . you . . . hyperbole? surely not :ROTFL:

To me a crappy camera is a camera I can't be bothered to work with, regardless of how good a photograph it can make. There are tons of crappy cameras that make excellent photographs, I've owned several of them.

...........

It's a personal judgement call as to what qualifies as a "crappy camera". Whether it's control ergonomics, size, overall responsiveness, etc ... there can be all kinds of reasons. Buy it, try it, move on if it's crappy, work with it if it's not. Period.
I think that the problem here is that crappy really implies objectivity (which offends the people who's cameras you refer to as crappy), whereas (although I actually agree with you about most of those cameras), these are subjective calls.

Interestingly, apart from 'it doesn't suit me' there doesn't seem to be a very good subjective expletive . . . perhaps you should invent one Godfrey?

BTW, I see you've gotten a Pen digital and were talking about portrait lenses. At present, the top of the class on that is the Macro-Elmarit-DG 45mm f/2.8 ASPH OIS. While there might be a faster lens that works well, I doubt anything's going to surpass it by much in overall practical usability or quality.
Can't quibble with that - fantastic lens, one of my very favorites - sharp but not brutal, and with a lovely gentle bokeh - fab.

all the best
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Godfrey . . . you . . . hyperbole? surely not
I do occasionally speak with a certain amount of passion. ]'-)


I think that the problem here is that crappy really implies objectivity (which offends the people who's cameras you refer to as crappy), whereas (although I actually agree with you about most of those cameras), these are subjective calls.
I don't know how the word "crappy" has any specific implication of objectivity associated with it. The dictionary defines it as:

crappy - adjective ( -pier , -piest ) ::vulgar slang
1 of extremely poor quality : crappy wine.
2 disgusting or unpleasant; worthless : Phil's room is the crappiest.
3 ill; in poor physical condition : I feel really crappy today.
That's all subjective, there are no metrics involved.

I think the reason that calling a camera crappy (or "bad") offends people occasionally is precisely because all these kinds of words are so subjective. People are not objective about how they feel about their belongings, with rare exception. I'm objective about cameras when it comes to performance, metrics, etc. I'm not when it comes to 'what I like'... but at the same time, when someone else doesn't like what I like, it really is neither here nor there.. ;-). I try to be honest and direct rather than undermining my meanings with PC dumb-down-speak.

Interestingly, apart from 'it doesn't suit me' there doesn't seem to be a very good subjective expletive . . . perhaps you should invent one Godfrey?
"Yuck!" seems to do well by me, as does "crappy".

re: ME45 lens ::: Can't quibble with that - fantastic lens, one of my very favorites - sharp but not brutal, and with a lovely gentle bokeh - fab.
It is a delightful lens. My buddy has loaned his to me on several occasions, I've made over a thousand photos with it and they're all amazingly good quality, even if many of them are crappy pictures ... ;-)

I bought the ZD 50/2 Macro first specifically and importantly because I needed a top-notch macro lens in this focal length range for my DSLR bodies also and I could only afford one lens at that moment, but I'll add the ME45 to my kit as soon as the work I'm doing justifies the expense.
 
P

PeterLeyssens

Guest
Hi Godfrey,

LOL! I'm exercising my right to hyperbole, and my lack of restraint. ;-)
And I'm exercising my right to not relativate ! Hah ! :ROTFL:

To me a crappy camera is a camera I can't be bothered to work with, regardless of how good a photograph it can make.
Oh, I know exactly what you mean. The mind shouted yes to DSLRs and the E-420 that was in my hands, but the whole rest of my being shouted no. I still miss that 11-22 a bit sometimes. Anybody care to donate a 9-18 in µ43 mount to help a poor soul ?


(I had Olympus OM1 and OM2n cameras: liked them overall but didn't like their ergonomics much: they didn't fit my hands well and the viewfinders had insufficient eye relief. But they didn't annoy me enough to qualify as "crappy", I was sad to sell them but the Nikon FM and FE2 did better for me ... ;-)
I used an OM-1 for a few years until the light meter broke right when I was starting a photography course. Nice camera. I handled it a few times afterwards, too. But nothing compared to the OM-3 or OM-4Ti I got afterwards, particularly when fit with the 2-13 ultra bright focusing screen. Those cameras' user interfaces are just so unbelievably good.


BTW, I see you've gotten a Pen digital and were talking about portrait lenses. At present, the top of the class on that is the Macro-Elmarit-DG 45mm f/2.8 ASPH OIS. While there might be a faster lens that works well, I doubt anything's going to surpass it by much in overall practical usability or quality.
I see that it's less than 1cm smaller both in diameter as well as in length compared to my beloved OM 90/f2.0 macro, but the weight is exactly half. The 90/f2.0 is brilliant as a portrait lens, though, because it is so bright. Of course, watching the image it projects on the 2-13 screen is half the enjoyment. I wonder what it'll be like to try out lenses on an LCD... The problem with the "dump it if crappy" mentality is that it will lead me to an X1 that I cannot afford, or to a GXR+A12 that I can't afford and that has that weird "lensor" way of working. I don't find any camera on the market that makes me go *wow* and that does not combine this with severe limitations: the X1 has a fixed lens, the NEX UI seems to be very so-so, the M9 is big and costs more than a new kitchen, the S2 with lenses costs nearly as much as our house's new extension, the µ43 have a lack of fast primes and so on. I still want to make photos, so I'm trying out different compromises while curmudgeoning my way through the market.

Anyway, good discussion.


Peter.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
... But nothing compared to the OM-3 or OM-4Ti I got afterwards, particularly when fit with the 2-13 ultra bright focusing screen. Those cameras' user interfaces are just so unbelievably good. ...
I always thought the OM-4ti and later OM-3Ti were lovely bodies, but by that time I was completely happy with my Nikon FM2-FE2-F3/T generation cameras and lenses and saw no sensible reason to bother with any other SLRs. Once the equipment works well enough, I'm simply not fussy enough to keep changing equipment on the hope that some small thing will provide anything much better. I find that my best work comes from long familiarity with both the excellent aspects of my equipment and learning how to ignore the warts ... and all equipment has some warts.

... The 90/f2.0 is brilliant as a portrait lens, though, because it is so bright. ...
The aesthetic experience of a top of the line SLR viewfinder is unmatched by any electronic display so far, but I don't rate viewfinders so much for their aesthetic experience as I do by how well they allow me to focus and frame, and control the camera. There the EVF on the G1 and E-P2 excel, imo.

The 90/2 is a great portrait lens on 24x36 format both for reason of its focal length and speed as well as what that combination of focal length and speed means with regard to scene dynamics in DoF, the amount of blur it produces in background magnification, and perspective. While a 45mm lens on FourThirds format is nominally the "equivalent" in Field of View, the rest of the imaging dynamics are quite different. For instance, a theoretical 45mm f/2 direct equivalent to the 90/2 has 2 stops more DoF and even then cannot create the same background blur due to the fact that the background magnification is 1/2 what the 90 produces on 35mm format at infinity. Switching to a longer lens to obtain more of that background blur look, you have to reposition yourself to obtain the same subject size, which changes perspective.

The long and the short of it is that FourThirds is simply a different format from 35mm, just as APS-C is a different format, just as 6x6, 645, 6x9 cm, and 4x5 inch, are all different formats with different dynamics. If you want the dynamics of 35mm film, you need to have a 35mm film format camera.

The problem with the "dump it if crappy" mentality is that it will lead me to an X1 that I cannot afford, or to a GXR+A12 that I can't afford and that has that weird "lensor" way of working. I don't find any camera on the market that makes me go *wow* and that does not combine this with severe limitations: the X1 has a fixed lens, the NEX UI seems to be very so-so, the M9 is big and costs more than a new kitchen, the S2 with lenses costs nearly as much as our house's new extension, the µ43 have a lack of fast primes and so on. I still want to make photos, so I'm trying out different compromises while curmudgeoning my way through the market.
I find few cameras that make me go "wow!", frankly. Cameras are tools, just like hammers and wrenches, or pens and pencils. There's only so good a tool can become before further deliberation over the tool's qualities start to overshadow enjoying what the tool produces as the primary reason for being involved with it.

Even the now-ancient E-1 is still an excellent tool for making superb photographs ... great ergonomics, wonderful lenses, quiet and smooth operation albeit slow, relatively low resolution by current standards, etc. It still does not "annoy me enough not to bother with it" and remains a delightful camera to use despite its shortcomings.

In other words, nails really don't care what hammer hits them, and the furniture the nails and hammer together make is more important than the hammer.

... "Equipment so often gets in the way of Photography." ...
 
Top