Seriously!

[pophoto]

"I think now is a good time, for users and camera/lens manufacturers alike to take m43s seriously because ..."

I've been thinking about this sentiment for a while now, and have longed for a full-frame mirrorless, and now realize how much it doesn't really make sense in the long run, because of added weight and size of lenses. While I know others are not on the page that's okay, that's what is great about this world, variety!
However, if you share the same sentiment, please share a little insight about your own mileage and foresight please!

It's fun to share after all!

Thanks
Po

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Every 4/3 and m4/3 camera since the E-1 has had a sensor good enough for "serious" photography. What has been lacking with all m4/3 cameras is ergonomics and/or build quality. My GH1, an excellent camera in most ways, has been at Panasonic waiting for repair for 4 or 5 months now. They clearly aren't interested in fixing it. Unless they change their ways, I'm not buying a Panasonic camera again, except maybe cheap second-hand.

The OM-D seems to be a new breed of m4/3 camera, and the first one that is suited for everyday use. Hopefully, Olympus know from experience that long term support is the path leading to long term success. If I was going to invest from scratch today, a combination of 4/3 and m4/3 would probably be my choice (4/3 for sports/action).

Full frame? I do have an F6 and a Fuji GX 680, but for well over 90% of my photography, 4/3 and m4/3 is more than sufficient. My most used camera outside motor sports is the L1.

 

[simonstucki]

it depends. I think a larger sensor mirrorles would make sense for landscape or tripod work in general. mift is great and for a lot of stuff it is just perfect but a mirrorless with something like a d800 sensor and the ability to take most of the existing lenses would be great.

 

[pellicle]

"I think now is a good time, for users and camera/lens manufacturers alike to take m43s seriously because ..."

I've been thinking about this sentiment for a while now, and have longed for a full-frame mirrorless, and now realize how much it doesn't really make sense in the long run, because of added weight and size of lenses.

depends. Seen old Leica cameras? Lenses aren't that big you know. Seen a m4/3 lens as wide and as compact as the Olympus 21mm f3.5?

For sure I agree that on longer focal lengths the smaller sensor rocks but for wides and normals? Personally I lean towards a full frame.

Considering I have enough megapixels in my phone camera there can be no reasonable argument that the electronics for processing the images made by a full 35mm frame 8Mpix camera would need to be any larger or heavier than my OM10 is.

nearly the same size aren't they

 

[Vivek]

I would very much like a larger format mirrorless (with true electronic liveview, built in EVF and the whole works) in a compact package that does not require a Leica premium.

 

[biglouis]

it depends. I think a larger sensor mirrorles would make sense for landscape or tripod work in general. mift is great and for a lot of stuff it is just perfect but a mirrorless with something like a d800 sensor and the ability to take most of the existing lenses would be great.

Maybe. If you are going to have use a tripod then I'd argue go film MF camera. You'll get far better results.

I don't think it will be long before we see a 36mpx CSC just because the marketing departments of camera manufacturers are engaged in a sensless size war.

LouisB

 

[Godfrey]

I found Micro-FourThirds quite seriously useful right out of the starting line with the G1. Just because Olympus has produced an even better body now doesn't make the G1, GH1, G2, and GH2 poor bodies.

What's been missing until recently are fast lenses on par with the FourThirds lenses in Micro-FourThirds mount. Lenses take a lot of time to develop, it seems, bodies are easier.

Full-frame 'mirrorless' (I really prefer the term "TTL electronic" rather than mirrorless—my M9 is mirrorless but it's certainly not TTL viewing)? Sure, there are plenty of good lenses available already. But don't expect compact. 35mm film sized sensors and their supporting circuitry take up a lot more space than a roll of 35mm film and the film transport mechanism.

 

[Brian Mosley]

True Godfrey, but Jono's reports of the E-M5's usefulness for legacy lens use (backed up by beautiful example photos) have gotten me interested again... I've got a mint condition Hexanon 57mm f1.2 and rainbow imaging adapter on the way, and I can't wait to use it!

The G1 was what got me immediately into m4/3rds... The E-M5 is the camera to get me interested in legacy lens shooting again.

Cheers

Brian

 

[jonoslack]

HI There
Brian - thank you for the kind words - trying out these lenses is a lot of fun.
Well, seems to me that the only really valid reason for a full frame mirrorless is for more 'depth of field control' . . . . I really wish people didn't use that expression - how about 'narrower depth of field', trying to make an un-emotive expression for it!

I agree - I'd like one as well . . .. . . but but but - I don't think it invalidates m4/3 at all, rather to the contrary. From my point of view I'd like to have both:
1. a camera with a smaller sensor and wider depth of field
2. a camera with a larger sensor and narrower depth of field.

The difference between m3.4 and APSc is not enough to be worth much, and nor is the difference between APSc and full frame . . . so, IMHO the perfect combination is to have two systems, one m43, (wildlife, macro, travel) and one full frame (landscape, portrait etc). Not to say that each couldn't be used for both of course.

Now all I need is the full frame mirrorless, also with a nice R adapter, so I can use the 21-35 and the 28-90 R lenses in the same manner, but at their intended focal lengths (with a narrower depth of field).

all the best

 

[Godfrey]

True Godfrey, but Jono's reports of the E-M5's usefulness for legacy lens use (backed up by beautiful example photos) have gotten me interested again... I've got a mint condition Hexanon 57mm f1.2 and rainbow imaging adapter on the way, and I can't wait to use it!

The G1 was what got me immediately into m4/3rds... The E-M5 is the camera to get me interested in legacy lens shooting again.

I don't know why you call them "legacy lenses" ... Many of the lenses I used with my G1 are current series lenses for other camera mounts. There's nothing "legacy" about them.

The G1 was great to use with adapted lenses too. I shot with the Konica 40mm f/1.8, Cosmicar 12.5mm f/1.4, Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 AI-S, and Olympus Pen F 70mm f/2 more than I did with any Micro-FourThirds lens. I enjoyed working with it using manual focusing lenses like these, obtained results that were so much better, it's what incited me to abandon autofocus cameras and lenses for the most part.

I also used the G1 with my FourThirds 25mm f/2.8, Summilux 25mm f/1.4, and 35mm f/3.5 Macro as well. Shouldn't come as any surprise that the E-M5 is a bit better ... it has been four years and some since the first Micro-FourThirds camera went on the block, so some development must have happened. ;-)

 

[Godfrey]

... 'depth of field control' . . . . I really wish people didn't use that expression - how about 'narrower depth of field', trying to make an un-emotive expression for it!

I don't know about that. "Depth of field control" seems more objective and less emotive than "narrower depth of field" to me.

... I'd like to have both:
1. a camera with a smaller sensor and wider depth of field
2. a camera with a larger sensor and narrower depth of field.
...

That's why I have FourThirds, APS-C and 35mm format bodies which can share lenses back and forth between them:

- Nikkor lenses on Nikon F
- Nikkor, FourThirds mount lenses on E-1
- Nikkor, Leica M mount lenses on GXR
- Leica M mount lenses on M9, M4-2

The only problem with this is that I *still* have a mess of lenses and bodies ...
I'd really rather have less.

 

[Vivek]

It is really amusing to note that the OM-D is considered as a revolution when Olympus are just playing catch up to the G1 introduced years ago. "Toy" cameras suddenly become "serious" and so on.

 

[Brian Mosley]

I wouldn't consider the E-M5 to be revolutionary, although the OM-D could well prove to be

Weather seals, IBIS in video (once the firmware fix for legacy lenses arrives) and modular grips seem like pretty useful evolutionary steps, at least. :thumbs:

Cheers

Brian

 

[Vivek]

Not sure about the OMD but OMG might very well be a revelation.

 

[jonoslack]

It is really amusing to note that the OM-D is considered as a revolution when Olympus are just playing catch up to the G1 introduced years ago. "Toy" cameras suddenly become "serious" and so on.

For me it's the excellent IBIS which tips it over the edge - you sure couldn't shoot a 400mm equivalent lens on the G1 at 1/50th handheld . . . and you sure can on the OMD - there are implications there for macro, nature shooting, birding etc . . . but then that's not really what you do, so it's not surprising your unimpressed!

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

It is really amusing to note that the OM-D is considered as a revolution when Olympus are just playing catch up to the G1 introduced years ago. "Toy" cameras suddenly become "serious" and so on.

While there might not be too much difference in photographic results, my experience with Panasonic camera bodies and customer support has left them useless for any serious work. They break easily and are almost impossible to get repaired. The OM-D seems to be much more solidly built and my experience with their service organisation is mostly very positive.

 

[jonoslack]

While there might not be too much difference in photographic results, my experience with Panasonic camera bodies and customer support has left them useless for any serious work. They break easily and are almost impossible to get repaired. The OM-D seems to be much more solidly built and my experience with their service organisation is mostly very positive.

Hi Jorgen
I quite agree - whenever I've had problems with Olympus (and we go back a long way) they've been quick and efficient - added to which, the OMD feels like a solid lump . . . brick sh1t house is the expression which springs to mind!

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Not sure about the OMD but OMG might very well be a revelation.

OMG? Nah... it wasn't that good. Not even close to the quality of the original, one digit OM cameras

 

[Godfrey]

While there might not be too much difference in photographic results, my experience with Panasonic camera bodies and customer support has left them useless for any serious work. They break easily and are almost impossible to get repaired. The OM-D seems to be much more solidly built and my experience with their service organisation is mostly very positive.

Hmm. I was just working on some stuff in Lightroom and did a quick check: this is my "work in process" catalog, which has about 75,000 exposures in it. About 35-40% of those were made with Panasonic cameras (L1, G1, LX1, FZ10). Never had any failures at all. I have also been able to get spare parts (lens hoods, lens caps, etc) in a day or two from Panasonic USA.

Of course, I only rarely have failures with any camera. The last time I had to have a camera repaired it was the Leica M4-2 body that I bought used in BGN condition and needed a viewfinder/rangefinder CLA and collimation, but the time before that was somewhere about 1996 when a Nikon 35Ti's lens jammed.

None of my Olympus gear has ever required service, going all the way back to my OM-1n in 1976.

But I do agree with you and Jono: when it comes to service and repair on camera gear, I'd much rather deal with Olympus than Panasonic. Olympus camera support has always been one of the best when I've needed parts or other bits. The worst I've had to deal with were Canon and Sony.

 

[Terry]

But I do agree with you and Jono: when it comes to service and repair on camera gear, I'd much rather deal with Olympus than Panasonic. Olympus camera support has always been one of the best when I've needed parts or other bits. The worst I've had to deal with were Canon and Sony.

Not the story told on other forums. In order to cut costs, Olympus consolidated their service to fewer (or one) location and the experience/turn around time has deteriorated.