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!

State of mFT today

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
One of the fascinating sides of m4/3 is that I can take an E-PL5, with the same excellent sensor as the OM-D and a tilting LCD as well, add the 12mm f/2.0, the 20mm f/1.7 and the 45mm f/1.8, all excellent lenses and the whole packaging weighing less than 700g and costing less than $2,500 (Yes, that's less than the RX-1, both figures). Already at this stage, the image quality is good enough for almost any use I can think of, but in a pocketable package. At the same time, I can use the same lenses on cameras like the OM-D or the GH3, giving me the ergonomics and solidity needed for professional work.

This make m4/3 such an amazingly versatile system, and at the moment, there are no other systems that come even close to this.
 

pophoto

New member
As for the poster above that disparaged the IQ off the RX-1 by commenting on bit depth ... My response is, really? Have you even seen the superb files the RX-1 produces? I am getting scrumptious, deep, robust files that are turning into great prints. If anyone shooting with an RX-1 can't turn out super high quality prints with it and then blames bit depth then I will categorically state they are lacking in basic photo skills.

April 2012 – Bill Fulcher | HatakeyamaGallery.com
Without robbing this thread of honoring mFT in delight, I have to agree that the Sony RX1 is a sensational camera. If the focal length isn't your cup of tea, or its out of you price range, or if Sony robbed you in the past, then fine, but bickering about bit depth without working with or looking at the images... I agree, really? :p
 
As for the poster above that disparaged the IQ off the RX-1 by commenting on bit depth ... My response is, really? Have you even seen the superb files the RX-1 produces? I am getting scrumptious, deep, robust files that are turning into great prints.
and so do people w/ P&S :poke: , so what is your point ?
 

Tesselator

New member
and so do people w/ P&S :poke: , so what is your point ?

As for the poster above that disparaged the IQ off the RX-1 by commenting on bit depth ... My response is, really? Have you even seen the superb files the RX-1 produces? I am getting scrumptious, deep, robust files that are turning into great prints. If anyone shooting with an RX-1 can't turn out super high quality prints with it and then blames bit depth then I will categorically state they are lacking in basic photo skills.
Ummm, I think this line of back and forth is almost completely out of place. Not because of any social or political reasons but because of the technical fact that bit depth has absolutely nothing to do with "depth", richness, dynamic range, or anything like that. It has to do with the resolution of the dynamic range and not the range itself - which is still almost always 24bits in 8,8,8 RGB by the time we get it onto our computers. Rather the extra bits between 12 and 14 (or 15 in some rare cases) provide for greater precision which each photosite value turns into a recorded number in the raw linear gamma, file.

The difference in practice between 12 and 14bit camera raw files? None really - file-size maybe! It's not until we radically stretch things in post that we'll notice any differences. And who does that? Well in the past 3 or 4 years of looking at images on-line I've only seen a very small number that could have benefited from higher gamma precision. Mostly in deep shadow detail or in blue sky areas. And if you're doing such radical adjustments in post anyway then fixing a banded sky area is an easily added step to include. So we're back to "None really" with that again. For observing the difference in shadow/highlight detail not only does one need a really expensive and well calibrated monitor to see it but ya also need to be up around the 100% zoom ratio. Scale to even around 75% and all that is gone - and again we're back to "None really". Again, it's very rare indeed that either of the mentioned examples ever even happen in the first place. Then add to this the fact that some cameras just record shadow or highlight detail better than others even at the same bit precision and pretty much that entire spec can be thrown out never to be considered again. Looks good on paper maybe but it's just too meaningless to bring up as a point pro or con, in camera performance or ultimate IQ.
 

peterb

Member
This thread has turned out much better than I expected. The thoughtful views have been most enjoyable reading.

Here's what I like about mFT (Mind you, I'll be speaking mostly about the Lumix side of the equation as I have very little experience with Olympus).

1. (Like most people here) The size. In the digital age I was pretty much chagrined by the hefty offerings that seemed like people were hauling an albatross around their necks. I made the plunge into the realm with Leica's Digilux 2 feeling that digital at that time had achieved parity with film. That camera was bulky but not nearly as bulky as DSLRs. Then I saw the Lumix G1. A camera that was small but not too small. But with a thickness (the main part of the body not the grip that's often erroneously included in these measurements) that seemed no thicker than the Leica M6! I was sold. The GF1 and others also had a remarkable form (as well as the Olympus' digital homage to their 35mm Pens and now the OM).

2. The EVF. While there's certainly a love-hate relationship amongst aficionados I am one who loved it IMMEDIATELY. Coming off the experience with the Digilux 2's very 'grainy' EVF (which I thought was pretty cool despite what others felt) the EVF of the G1 was a quantum leap. Did I miss an OVF? A little. But the EVF gave me the equivalent of an HUD that fighter pilots enjoyed with all sorts of information and grids that could be super imposed (or not) over the image providing what I felt was a complete command center while engaged in shooting. Today we're seeing EVF's with resolution and clarity that make the original one I saw in the G1 seem absolutely pre-historic.

3. CDAF. At first the ugly step-sister to PDAF but now fully into it's own. It's blazingly fast. And deadly accurate. And, except in the most extreme low light circumstances is for the most part on a par with the best of PDAF in terms of speed and accuracy. (And for videographers a godsent as the preferred means of AF while filming.)

4. A leftward fully articulating LCD. This addition alone has made shooting with Lumix for me so incredibly enjoyable. Low angles. High angles. Stealthy sideways candid angles. Even self portraits. No other camera approach does it better IMHO. (Curiously I never understood why Olympus had it on their regular 4/3 E series cameras and then ditched it with their mFT offerings.) And speaking of portraits swung out on a tripod, it's like using a Hasselblad or TLR. The live view on the LCD makes everything incredibly facile.

5. A growing line of lenses and then some. Okay, the original lens I got, the ridiculously slow 14-45mm (28-90mm equiv.) zoom kinda sucked. But then Panasonic unleashed the 20mm f1.7. Then a Leica 45 Macro and a Leica 25mm f1.4. Then a 7-14mm f4 (nearly as good as the Oly FT version). And the 14-140 video monster. Then for big game hunters the 100-300mm f4. And now again copying Olympus FT optics offering two fixed f2.8's zooms: a 12-35mm and 35-100mm. Meanwhile Olympus has upped the ante with some nice jaw-dropping m-offerings of their own: the 12mm f2, 17mm f1.8 (which is a better focal length IMHO than Pany's middling 20mm f1.7), THEIR 45mm f1.8 Macro and their luscious 75mm f1.8 (a wow if ever there was one). And if that wasn't enough, mFT opened the floodgates for EVERYONE ELSES's optics from Nikon to Canon to Zeiss to Leica to Tamron to Samyang to Sigma to... And while these are mostly MF lenses the close-up patch borrowed from Digilux 2 days seems to work rather well as the overwhelming evidence on various threads in this section can attest. (Next step: Peaking.)

6. IQ. Initially not too shabby but steadily improving ever since. Olympus and Panasonic seem to have realized that 16 MP is certainly plenty for a good 300 DPI image in a coffee table book or a magazine spread. And every gallery. And with each iteration the one weakness, high ISO noise, has been their focus (pun intended). The OM-D with (I think) Sony's (mostly likely EXMOR like) sensor has been performing impressively at ISO 3200. And there's no reason to think that the GH3 with it's waterproof, full metal MG++ jacket wouldn't be the same. I don't know about you but with Oly's new faster optics and the new sensors I see a grand slam for most situations besides sports and extreme low light PI work with spousal indiscretions. Video, which is not something I'm into, has similarly seen advances that, for the most part, put mFT first on most short lists.

7. Body design. While I mentioned size initially there is a lot to be said for the thoughtful body designs of these creatures. Panasonic and Olympus seem to have struck a right balance of software driven features as well as good old mechanical layouts. A blend of good intuitive menus as well as a careful offering of essential (and apparently preferred by most) buttons and dials and their placement. Realizing that touch screen success in smartphones would have certain advantages (with the right software) in a camera and incorporating them is nothing short of genius. Finally a word or two about camera noise. From the very beginning I've really liked the low-pitched shluck of the G1 and everything after that has been just as non-attention grabbing. Initial reports of the totally silent shutter of the GH3 seem to be a mixed bag. But I'm certain that any issues will be worked out with a minor improvement in the firmware.

Do I find anything to fault?

Probably the two things that any camera with a larger sensor can offer: (1) shallow depth of field. This is simply a matter of physics. And there's nothing you can do about it although SLR Magic's 0.95 lenses can certainly bring you closer. But I've also experimented with the Brenizer method (as Tessalator has as well) which, if you don't mind the extra work of taking and stitching a number of smaller files together, allows you to achieve results that no larger frame sensor could give you (unless of course it's also being used in a Brenizer context) because the lens equivalents simply don't exist (a 28mm f0.8????). And (2) better low light performance. This clearly has come a long way (although I still tend to shoot at ISO 100-360 out of habit) but with others shooting quasars at ISO 12600 it's hard not to be a little envious. (Of course, if low light shooting is your raison d'être for image making you probably wouldn't be using this system anyway! :) )

(Note there are others but these two are the most glaring.)

So for my money, I really like how far mFT has come, where it's at and if past performance is any indication of future possibilities...where it's going.
 
The difference in practice between 12 and 14bit camera raw files? None really
if you are talking about Canon's w/ huge read noise at lower ISO's - yes, none really... if you are talking about Nikons w/ proper sensors at base ISOs - you can see that in shadows... certainly if you print you will not see that because printing is hiding most defects... printing like "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" is the last refuge of deficient camera's... in all cases where your beloved gear is lacking something you can always escape to that position, knowing that nobody can see your tiny prints :LOL:

 

ustein

Contributing Editor
>you might want to define "IQ" and quantify "ultimate" before using that buzzword

Hope you don't get what you asked for because that may end up to be a controversial book :). But in general term like "ultimate", "optimal" are vague at best.
 

Jonas

Active member
For me (kind of advanced amateur having published a total of two images and participating in 1 (and a half) exhibition, all back in the film days) micro 4/3 answers all my needs when it comes to sheer image quality. Not too expensive, easy to carry and I can fit the important parts in a Domke satchel bag. All is well, right?
I'm sure everything is fine for many users and uses but I don't know. I'm somehow a little tired of all the 4/3 images. Most of them look the same. They are sharp and nice and the Oly blue really is blue... and well, like nice postcards they are.
I'm not sure about what I can afford in a few months time but I'm really tempted by a FF system again and now we have that alpha99 and a Sony/Zeiss ZA50/1.4 is coming some time during the spring. In the meantime I have no problems using the E-M5 and the great micro lenses, there is just something missing and some day I'll have to go back there.
 

ohnri

New member
For me (kind of advanced amateur having published a total of two images and participating in 1 (and a half) exhibition, all back in the film days) micro 4/3 answers all my needs when it comes to sheer image quality. Not too expensive, easy to carry and I can fit the important parts in a Domke satchel bag. All is well, right?
I'm sure everything is fine for many users and uses but I don't know. I'm somehow a little tired of all the 4/3 images. Most of them look the same. They are sharp and nice and the Oly blue really is blue... and well, like nice postcards they are.
I'm not sure about what I can afford in a few months time but I'm really tempted by a FF system again and now we have that alpha99 and a Sony/Zeiss ZA50/1.4 is coming some time during the spring. In the meantime I have no problems using the E-M5 and the great micro lenses, there is just something missing and some day I'll have to go back there.
Interesting point. I find that whenever I pick up a new piece of gear that it inspires me to try new things. I know it is "the photographer and not the camera" but I really do find that different gear leads to different images. And that is a good thing.

-Bill

Fashion Meets Fighting

April 2012 – Bill Fulcher | HatakeyamaGallery.com
 

Jonas

Active member
Interesting point. I find that whenever I pick up a new piece of gear that it inspires me to try new things. I know it is "the photographer and not the camera" but I really do find that different gear leads to different images. And that is a good thing.
Hi Bill

Yes, that's also how it is. Micro 4/3 have served me well since November 2008 when I bought the original Panasonic G1 and I have done things with it I never did with my 5D cameras. The 5DMkII has a Live view function but it isn't close to what the micro cameras offer. So, maybe four years with these small sensor cameras, becoming better and better, by itself calls for a change? Or is going "back" to FF a step back as I have been there earlier? ;)

Maybe we are getting off-topic here. Cheers, /Jonas
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
For me (kind of advanced amateur having published a total of two images and participating in 1 (and a half) exhibition, all back in the film days) micro 4/3 answers all my needs when it comes to sheer image quality. Not too expensive, easy to carry and I can fit the important parts in a Domke satchel bag. All is well, right?
I'm sure everything is fine for many users and uses but I don't know. I'm somehow a little tired of all the 4/3 images. Most of them look the same. They are sharp and nice and the Oly blue really is blue... and well, like nice postcards they are.
I'm not sure about what I can afford in a few months time but I'm really tempted by a FF system again and now we have that alpha99 and a Sony/Zeiss ZA50/1.4 is coming some time during the spring. In the meantime I have no problems using the E-M5 and the great micro lenses, there is just something missing and some day I'll have to go back there.
Yup, same feeling sometimes, which is one of the reasons why I think there's a 35mm DSLR in my future too, and one of the reasons why I find using an Olympus OM "non-D" loaded with Tri-X very satisfying as well. Or even the F6, which is like using a DSLR without the D. More or less.

But for general photography, there's no way back for me. At the moment no other system can replace the versatility of m4/3.
 

ohnri

New member
Hi Bill

Yes, that's also how it is. Micro 4/3 have served me well since November 2008 when I bought the original Panasonic G1 and I have done things with it I never did with my 5D cameras. The 5DMkII has a Live view function but it isn't close to what the micro cameras offer. So, maybe four years with these small sensor cameras, becoming better and better, by itself calls for a change? Or is going "back" to FF a step back as I have been there earlier? ;)

Maybe we are getting off-topic here. Cheers, /Jonas
At least part of the reason I bought a RX-1 was just to shoot with something small and different. No doubt a FF sensor has an aesthetic that is at least a bit different from other size sensors.

Still, the versatility of the m4/3's system is impressive. When I think about the early days with my Olympus E-1 and how I waited and waited for a real system to be built around it. Never happened.

But now, when I read this thread I am so impressed that there seems to be something within the m4/3's universe for photographers of such diversity.

My hope is that Olympus and Panasonic keep pushing into the as yet uncovered niches. I don't want them to sit on their accomplishments and slowly fossilize into Nikon or Canon.

-Bill

Fashion Meets Fighting

April 2012 – Bill Fulcher | HatakeyamaGallery.com
 

Tim

Active member
I do have one possible answer to my dilemma for a 21/40/90 kit in the Fuji XE-1.

The OM-D and XE-1 are both similar in that they offer an EVF but with the XE-1 I can get the XF14mmF2.8 R - FOV similar to 21mm... add the XF35mmF1.4 R and the XF60mmF2.4 and I'd have a 3x lens kit.

The problem here is I tend to prefer closer to 40mm than 50mm and the XF35 is more like a 50mm in FOV.

The other issue is the Fuji system would cost somewhat more I think also weight, bulk and filter sizes grow. It does not seem prudent to change systems just for one lens that I'd use maybe 20% of the time.
 

biglouis

Well-known member
One other complaint I have about m43rds is that to date there is no decent 35mm fov lens for it.

I keep hoping that Panasonic will persaude Leica to let them introduce one more PanaLeica lens, a 17.5mm f2 Summicron or f1.4 Summilux.

Maybe the new Olymus 17/1.8 will suffice?

LouisB
 

CPWarner

Member
I am loving my E-M5. With the great wide angle zooms (7-14 and 9-18), fast zooms (12-35 and 35-100), high quality primes (12mm, 25mm 45mm 75mm) and great macro lenses (45mm and 60mm), the system is getting to be rather complete. The one thing I would like to see in the lens category that would complete the system in my mind is a fast long telephoto lens. The upcoming Panasonic 150mm f2.8 looks to be really interesting. I would love to see an Olympus Tele in that range or longer, say 300mm, to make a 600mm equivalent. For now I will keep using my Canon FD 300mm, but autofocus would be nice.

Cliff
 

Tesselator

New member
you might want to define "IQ" and quantify "ultimate" before using that buzzword...
>you might want to define "IQ" and quantify "ultimate" before using that buzzword

Hope you don't get what you asked for because that may end up to be a controversial book :). But in general term like "ultimate", "optimal" are vague at best.
Yeah, I definitely don't wanna go there. Defining terms and getting all nit-picky can be fun sometimes but this was meant in a relative way. If one is familiar with the current states then the relativity is relevant - if not, oh well, too much work to explain. Indeed, a potential book as ustein points out. :)



One other complaint I have about m43rds is that to date there is no decent 35mm fov lens for it.

I keep hoping that Panasonic will persaude Leica to let them introduce one more PanaLeica lens, a 17.5mm f2 Summicron or f1.4 Summilux.

Maybe the new Olymus 17/1.8 will suffice?

LouisB
How about the Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95 ???
 

biglouis

Well-known member
Yeah, I definitely don't wanna go there. Defining terms and getting all nit-picky can be fun sometimes but this was meant in a relative way. If one is familiar with the current states then the relativity is relevant - if not, oh well, too much work to explain. Indeed, a potential book as ustein points out. :)





How about the Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95 ???
Like Microsoft, I don't support legacy technologies. Has to be AF or nothing when I'm using digital. :)

LouisB
 
Top