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!

M8 vs 4/3

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
Curious. As an old E-1 owner, I also picked up an E-3 recently and have put some time into the same comparison (my 30% off 75/2.0 APO-ASPH vs the humble Oly ZD50/2.0 macro). Frontlit, they both can take fine pictures, as Jono shows. So I moved on to a tougher comparison, backlit filigree against the highlights. This time of year, bare branches and the last of the leaves against the sky provide the acid test. Here's a pretty impressive performance (100% crop, C1Pro3.7.7 straight development with the "extra shadow" curve to bring up the tree trunks):
I couldn't hold the shadows without losing the branch tips on the E-3, although I could put up a pretty good fight for the branch tips if I let the foreground go dark. I think the difference is not lens contrast (the 75 'cron is pretty contrasty) but sensor dynamic range. Anyway, I am having a great time with the E-3 shooting sports -- its AF actually works in crummy basketball lighting.

scott
 

lambert

New member
I went to the store today and played with one for about 45 minutes and also 3 brand new D300 came in the door when I was there , so got a chance to play with the E3 and just held the D300. My surprise is there relatively the same size but I loved the finder of the E3 it was better by far than the Leica 4/3rds. It handled very nice except the 12-60 and 50-200 zooms were very stiff in zooming and the lens comes out when zooming. D300 okay flat panel display is what came to mind. Just the ergonomics i may like the Nikon better but i did like the 1st menu display on the E3 you hit any control button a whole menu comes up but just that function is operable.
I have tried two or so 12-60 Olympus lenses and they all seemed stubbornly stiff. Perhaps it has something to do with the weather sealing and I would hope they may loosen up over time.

The D300's ergonomics are bang on the money and the ultra high res LCD is a big winner in my book. But as far as lenses are concerned, Olympus have pulled together a small, but very impressive array of lenses. Since these are typically very high in quality, the resulting imaging quality is also very high. Nowadays, sensors & processing in almost all DSLRs is so high, that the real point of difference seems to be the lenses. And in this department Olympus, like Leica, have an edge over the competition. Rgds, Lambert
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
Here's an example of what the E-3 can do with its 50/2.0. (Can anyone tell me how to intersperse text and pictures when uploading crops as opposed to linking to them when they are hosted elsewhere?).

scott
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I have tried two or so 12-60 Olympus lenses and they all seemed stubbornly stiff. Perhaps it has something to do with the weather sealing and I would hope they may loosen up over time.

The D300's ergonomics are bang on the money and the ultra high res LCD is a big winner in my book. But as far as lenses are concerned, Olympus have pulled together a small, but very impressive array of lenses. Since these are typically very high in quality, the resulting imaging quality is also very high. Nowadays, sensors & processing in almost all DSLRs is so high, that the real point of difference seems to be the lenses. And in this department Olympus, like Leica, have an edge over the competition. Rgds, Lambert
Lambert did not think of the weather sealing and excellent point. One other point is price too the 50 -200 is far less expensive than the 70 -200 2.8 . The E3 has it going on there is no question in my mind it felt very good in my hands and the controls were not to bad to figure out. Easy access to change ISO and EV also right there on the deck. I can't remember everything but I did like it.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
I don't doubt that the E-3 is a good camera, but there is a lot more to a camera's performance than simply the 100% crops. The fact that you need a 25mm lens to get the equivalent angle of view of a 50mm on full-frame 35mm is a big factor. That is a deal breaker for me, perhaps not for others. It is like the difference in depth of field between 35mm and medium format.
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
I don't doubt that the E-3 is a good camera, but there is a lot more to a camera's performance than simply the 100% crops. The fact that you need a 25mm lens to get the equivalent angle of view of a 50mm on full-frame 35mm is a big factor. That is a deal breaker for me, perhaps not for others.
If you want an f/1.4 at 25mm (50mm-eff), PanaLeica sells one. My favorite lens with the E-1 was the ZD 11-22, which was wonderfully sharp wide open at f/2.8, and gave a range of 22-44 mm-eff. Neither of these is exactly a pancake prime, and I wouldn't expect them to beat Leica's range of 28-70 mm-eff lenses under the most demanding conditions, but I bet I can put together an effective "which one is the Leica" comparison for you at 28-35 mm-eff once I retrieve my 11-22, just as Jono Slack did elsewhere at 100 mm-eff.

scott
 

lambert

New member
I don't doubt that the E-3 is a good camera, but there is a lot more to a camera's performance than simply the 100% crops. The fact that you need a 25mm lens to get the equivalent angle of view of a 50mm on full-frame 35mm is a big factor. That is a deal breaker for me, perhaps not for others. It is like the difference in depth of field between 35mm and medium format.
You're absolutely right Stuart. Primes are not a strong point of the 4/3rds system. A Canon 5D + 50/1.4 costs and weighs less than an E3 + 25/1.4. And the sensor in the 5D is some 4 times larger. But the Olympus zooms are a real class act and this will likely be the deciding factor in my case.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
It's not just that there are not many primes, it is that to get a 50mm field of view, you have to use a 25mm lens that has massively more depth of field. It's even worse if you want the look of a fast 35mm lens...you just can't get it in 4/3rds. For people who want lots of depth of field, this is great, but I am not one of them. I often use selective focus...not to have bokeh for bokeh's sake, but in order to better isolate the main subject and accentuate it. My normal lens is a 35mm, and if you shoot it from f/1.4 to f/2.8, you can get a wide field of view with shallow depth of field. This is something that is unavailable with 4/3rd's, and it is the primary reason why it could never be a replacement for an M8 in my toolkit. Like I said, that's for my photography, not necessarily for anyone else's.
 

jonoslack

Active member
My normal lens is a 35mm, and if you shoot it from f/1.4 to f/2.8, you can get a wide field of view with shallow depth of field. This is something that is unavailable with 4/3rd's, and it is the primary reason why it could never be a replacement for an M8 in my toolkit. Like I said, that's for my photography, not necessarily for anyone else's.
Hi Stuart
Couple of points here,
First of all, I don't think that ANYONE was suggesting that it would be a replacement for an M8 in their toolkit. But for someone whose M8 is their primary tool, and who needs an SLR sometimes - or even a camera to shoot in really tough conditions.
As for the shallow depth of field, I agree that there is a shortage of primes (but I use my M8 when I want fast primes). The zooms however are splendid, and the new 14-35 (28-70) at a constant f2 will certainly give you the separation you want. the 11-22 Scott mentions is a lovely lens, and although f2.8-f3.5 it stays at the f2.8 end for most of it's range. Of course, the other thing about all the mid and high range Olympus zooms is that you can shoot them wide open without penalty (either in terms of edge sharpness or vignetting).

Incidentally - as my test shows, the smaller dof with respect to the M8 is almost exactly 1 stop for the same field of view (that's not massively more DOF), There are many examples of wide angles with short depth of field.

I think it's interesting that most people seem to view 4/3 as 'half way' between APS-C and small sensor cameras - which is far from the case - vertically the difference in size is really very small.

If you've tried it and it doesn't work for you - fine. If you haven't - well, it's worth a look. As Woody implies, in terms of colour and lenses it makes a more comfortable bedfellow with the M8 than a 5D, and it's properly weatherproofed and much tougher.

But I certainly was only suggesting it as a companion for the M8, not a replacement.
 

jonoslack

Active member
If you want an f/1.4 at 25mm (50mm-eff), PanaLeica sells one. My favorite lens with the E-1 was the ZD 11-22, which was wonderfully sharp wide open at f/2.8, and gave a range of 22-44 mm-eff. Neither of these is exactly a pancake prime, and I wouldn't expect them to beat Leica's range of 28-70 mm-eff lenses under the most demanding conditions, but I bet I can put together an effective "which one is the Leica" comparison for you at 28-35 mm-eff once I retrieve my 11-22, just as Jono Slack did elsewhere at 100 mm-eff.

scott
Hi Scott
Thanks for joining in - I think it makes an interesting discussion piece. I still mourn my 11-22 (I have the 7-14 and the 12-60, so buying another would be a real luxury).
I also like the fact that apart from the reds (where I think the E3 is peerless), the colours really are very similar to the M8 colours - which makes it a grand companion piece.

I'm glad you're enjoying yours - certainly no replacement, but wandering around with the camera and the 12-60 is a pleasant experience.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
For me it would not be a replacement but a supplement and after playing with it yesterday I wonder how it and the D300 match up. My problem orginally with the Nikon 200 was color and look. It was very flat and skin tones i hated. I even thought of getting the Fuji S5 and still do. I wish we had more users of the Fuji here also because that camera looks very interesting also. Was looking at Dell yesterday and i almost hit the button for the 5D or the fuji S5 . They don't have the Oly E3 or D300 yet. But the prices were pretty good on the 5D and S5. Now the S5 is supposed to have great DR and Color.

BTW great discussion folks.
 

Marc Wilson

New member
I think the lack of (compact size) wide primes for the 4/3 cameras is a bit of an issue.
I have looked at the M8 with two primes not so much for my love or otherwise of rangefinders but in the search for a small 2 lens system of a certain image quality (M8, 5d etc) to carry alongside a 54 kit.
But when the price of the M8 has to be (unfortunately) taken into account the compact 4/3rds Olympus cameras, giving some really good image quality, are a nice option but not only would some 28mm or similar equivalent primes be in order but the fact of the E3 being alot bigger than previous 4/3 cameras seems to be a shame.

Marc
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Hi Stuart
Couple of points here,
First of all, I don't think that ANYONE was suggesting that it would be a replacement for an M8 in their toolkit.
Isn't that what M8 vs 4/3 implies?

As for the shallow depth of field, I agree that there is a shortage of primes (but I use my M8 when I want fast primes). The zooms however are splendid, and the new 14-35 (28-70) at a constant f2 will certainly give you the separation you want. <snip>
Incidentally - as my test shows, the smaller dof with respect to the M8 is almost exactly 1 stop for the same field of view (that's not massively more DOF), There are many examples of wide angles with short depth of field.
I would be interested to see a shot taken at 2-3 meters with a 25mm lens at f/4, because I work a lot with a 25mm lens on film, and it gives you a TON of depth of field.
This shot, for example, was shot with the 25/2.8 at around f/4.5



But I certainly was only suggesting it as a companion for the M8, not a replacement.
Fair enough. I am not trying to imply that it is not a good camera or anything like that at all. Just that if you like wide angles with small depth of field, it is probably not the greatest choice.

Here are some shots with a 35mm lens to illustrate what I am talking about...






By contrast, this is a 25mm lens at f/4...not the greatest photo, I will readily admit.


Anyway, if I am mistaken about the depth of field characteristics, I would be happy to hear it...or rather see it. Especially when to get a 35mm lens's angle of view, you need a 17.5mm...
 

jlm

Workshop Member
i think the main legitmate complaint about cropped format cameras is the lack of sufficiently wide enough lenses to give a wide angle field of view.
I don't buy the argument about increased DOF when you use a 25mm to get the FOV of a 50, for example. what you are doing is selecting a portion of the total 25mm viewing circle. if you made contact prints of the total circle and the 4/3 crop, they would show the same DOF, but if you enlarge the crop to get an 8x10 print, which the DOF tables for a 35mm neg. are based on, you are also enlaging the circles of confusion, so the effective DOF is proportionately reduced
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
By how much though? That is the key. Depth of field is inherent in the focal length of the lens, so while you might get a bit less depth of field, it still would not be close to a 50mm lens. Using an 80mm lens on 6x6, you get a very similar amount of depth of field compared to using one on 35mm, regardless of the difference in negative size.
 

jonoslack

Active member
By how much though? That is the key. Depth of field is inherent in the focal length of the lens, so while you might get a bit less depth of field, it still would not be close to a 50mm lens. Using an 80mm lens on 6x6, you get a very similar amount of depth of field compared to using one on 35mm, regardless of the difference in negative size.
HI Stuart
I'll try and find something suitable to post - but as far as 'how much' I no longer have my full frame Kodak, so I con't compare with full frame, however, with the M8, as I say, for an equivalent FOV the difference in DOF is made up for in about 1 stop:

i.e. the second example in this thread was shot to equate the DOF at 2 metres, the E3 shot at f5.6 and the Leica at F8

This was shot at 24mm (48) at f3.4 on the 12--60, but I know it isn't really what you want


this isn't relevant, as it was shot at f3.5 at 180mm - still, it shows that there isn't always an immense depth of field!


Certainly, the examples you've given above could all easily have been shot on a 4/3 camera (IMHO of course)
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
Re: M8 vs 4/3 -- Bokeh OK?

Here are two test examples that I took long ago (with the E-1). I agree with Jono that the extra DOF in the 4/3 system is cancelled with about a stop of wider opening. I'll link to the Pbase gallery so that the EXIF data is available. The largest "original" version is probably compressed by now, and not by me.

Bokeh behind
and
in front and in back

Both shots with the 14-54mm original standard zoom lens.

scott
 

Hacker

New member
I had the E500 and the E330 with almost every lens (except the ZD300 and ZD90-250). The promise of 4/3 did not work for me. The bodies were no smaller than the C/N equivalent. However, the lenses were exceptional, notably the 7-14, 50, 150 and the 35-100. 50-200 (distortion at the wides, soft at the tele end) and the 35 (slow) I consider so so. The promise of the 14-35 never did materialize even till today, and if the 14-35 comes out, I will get it with the E3.

What has happenned to the Panasonic 45mm?
 

vieri

Well-known member
The problem is...

I agree with Jono that the extra DOF in the 4/3 system is cancelled with about a stop of wider opening.

scott
The problem is that you don't have a stop extra on 4/3 to get the same DOF you would get on a M8. In fact, the fastest 1.4/25 would never give you the same shallow DOF as the equivalent 1.4/50 on the M8 - and things are getting way worse the wider you get: even if having the same speed would grant you the same DOF (but we agree that we need at least stop faster on 4/3 than that to get equivalent DOF), there isn't a 17.5mm f1.4 or faster, there isn't a 14mm f2, or a 12mm f2.8.

So this is a no-brainer: if what you are looking for is shallow DOF - as in, fast-lenses-wide-open-shallow or close to that, despite the qualities it might have in other fields, 4/3 is not going to work for you as well as the M8 or as any DSLR (1.5x or 1x) for that matter.
 
Top