ShooterSteve
New member
Have to agree about long lens work on APS cameras. That was quite a bonus. It's the same for cinema cameras where Super35 is about the same size as APS-C.
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!
Has time and technology caught up with m43rds?
- Thread starter biglouis
- Start date
Riley
New member
The reason formats like Super 35 and Super 16 survive is because they have quality lenses to support them. Even today the entirety of films like the Hurt Locker were shot on Super 16 film. As it stands the most dedicated lens deprived format is APSC.
The intent from the makers is to offer APSC as cheap, these are their high volume cheap cameras for entry level and starter kits. High End APSC has been replaces by Low End cheap FF. The problem with that is cheap FF will only be cheap if they continue to offer circa 3-5 fps and 1/4000 shutters, ie they are cheap because they are feature starved.
The opportunity there for m43rds manufacturers has already been exercised with the EM5 and GH2/3 but they need to drive further and exploit this strategy from C&N to drive people to feature rich FF if they want to make the most of their hobby or need to cover a professional photographic aspect. C&N will continue to find ways of ensuring that gap will remain for the same reasons.
I am quite happy with MFT. I think the size compromise is about right and certainly lenses designed specifically for MFT are quite compact compared even to APSC.
What I would like to see are some fast, high quality zooms similar to those available for Four Thirds. Ones that don't need in-camera distortion fixing and CA removal to give good results.
There is some stunning manual glass available, for example the Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 and SLR Magic 12mm T1.6.
What I would like to see are some fast, high quality zooms similar to those available for Four Thirds. Ones that don't need in-camera distortion fixing and CA removal to give good results.
There is some stunning manual glass available, for example the Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 and SLR Magic 12mm T1.6.
With my experience much lacking, I'm mostly much lurking,
but the issue/decision the OP raises is much my own, now,
needing a decision in some direction.
I now read over @DPReview's Nikon X00 forum where there is
much expressed angst & doubt about the future --with Nikon,
but also comparing to Canon-- of APS-C in at least something near
"pro" levels : that Nikon is behind presumed schedule for some
X00 ("D400") upgrade, and seems to be indicating an ending
to such things by (a) not having any "pro" "DX" glass, and (b)
pushing newly low-priced, small-sized full 35mm ("FX") body,
viz. D600 (& in the light side, Canon 7D aging, 6D issued). !?
Whereas, for M4/3, as Terry enumerates, there have been now
many high-quality lenses issued, and Pany has weather-toughened
--even <gasp> enlarging-- their GH body, and put out what seem
to be standard pro-level f/2.8 zooms. That suggests to me that
they might be finding the format serious enough in performance
to be accepted by pros seeking to lighten their load. (I recall
being impressed by some not-large female PJs lugging 2-body,
multi-lenses kits of D3 + 70-200, 24-70, ... in demanding tasks!
If a GH3 + E-M5 enables considerable reduction in size, I'd think
this would be greatly welcomed.)
For myself, the smallness fad w/bodies has run overboard :
my hands remain the same size, and at times favor having
something to grip, not daintily hold. (I have an LX3, surviving
the cycling crash that has sidelined my intro-camera, D40.)
Now, smaller lenses, okay. (And cheaper would be nice!
)
-drofnad
but the issue/decision the OP raises is much my own, now,
needing a decision in some direction.
This observation caught my eye as seeming at odds with what
I now read over @DPReview's Nikon X00 forum where there is
much expressed angst & doubt about the future --with Nikon,
but also comparing to Canon-- of APS-C in at least something near
"pro" levels : that Nikon is behind presumed schedule for some
X00 ("D400") upgrade, and seems to be indicating an ending
to such things by (a) not having any "pro" "DX" glass, and (b)
pushing newly low-priced, small-sized full 35mm ("FX") body,
viz. D600 (& in the light side, Canon 7D aging, 6D issued). !?
Whereas, for M4/3, as Terry enumerates, there have been now
many high-quality lenses issued, and Pany has weather-toughened
--even <gasp> enlarging-- their GH body, and put out what seem
to be standard pro-level f/2.8 zooms. That suggests to me that
they might be finding the format serious enough in performance
to be accepted by pros seeking to lighten their load. (I recall
being impressed by some not-large female PJs lugging 2-body,
multi-lenses kits of D3 + 70-200, 24-70, ... in demanding tasks!
If a GH3 + E-M5 enables considerable reduction in size, I'd think
this would be greatly welcomed.)
For myself, the smallness fad w/bodies has run overboard :
my hands remain the same size, and at times favor having
something to grip, not daintily hold. (I have an LX3, surviving
the cycling crash that has sidelined my intro-camera, D40.)
Now, smaller lenses, okay. (And cheaper would be nice!
)-drofnad
kit laughlin
Subscriber Member
No doubt I am swimming against the tide here. I have put my hacked ("no adverse affects" (sic)) GH2 and LX7 up on evilbay. I now use the first pair of cameras that I'm actually happy with in quite some time, and have sold the RX-100, and all the other compacts.
After a great deal of experimenting, quite a bit of money, and a great deal of time and comparing like many of us here I have settled on a pair of NEX 6 bodies.
I do not like the menu system (who could?), but now they are set up, I only need to go to the menu to format a card—nothing else.
The combination of direct manual focus and focus peaking is extremely effective for any manual focus lens or even an autofocus lens when you're focusing manually. Shooting portraits of a reluctant mother in the garden last week I was able to focus on her eyeballs with 100% reliability.
White balance is on the function button. WB can be warmed or cooled with a single soft key press: now that's flexibility. I use this all the time. Moving the focus square is on the bottom soft key (B) and this stays active if you do not press "OK"—great for moving portrait situations. Exposure compensation is on a rotary dial. ISO is on a point on the same dial.
The lens lineup looks like this: CV 12/5.6 on adapter; works perfectly, unlike the NEX 7. The Sigma twins, truly excellent lenses, especially the 45mm EFOV 30/2.8. I will be posting an image or two if anyone's interested, over at the Fun with the NEX thread, probably later today.
Finally, I have pre-ordered the CV 50/1.5 and will be buying an OM 50/3.5 macro for the tabletop work. And I can experiment with many of the legacy lenses we all like here.
Why the NEX 6? Because its 1080p/24 video is superb, and its AF and follow focus works in video mode (essential for solo pieces to camera); its control of noise is excellent; the larger sensor (than µ4/3rds) is closer to the look I like (I shot MF and FF for many years, film and digital), and the excellent EVF. And this body is smaller in all dimensions than the OM-D, IIRC.
So, in sum: all manual controls for what I need; tremendous flexibility re. lens choice (and don't forget the Sigma twins for $199!!!), the Sigma 50/2.8 preordered for those times when only AF will do, and excellent battery life. Four genuine batteries: they are reasonably priced.
The only 'con' is that I can't see how to get 1/3 ƒ stops out of the ISO setting. I use M often, to get the shutter speed and aperture combo. I want, then use the ISO control for exposure—but would like a finer control over this.
This rig can shoot excellent stills in low light; excellent video in any light; and both bodies fit in a tiny bag (the Crumpler "Mild Enthusiast" bag; passports in the back!).
And I have owned all of the great µ4/3rds lenses (except the 75; I do not need this length) but I see no practical size advantage over the lineup I describe here compared to the µ4/3rds offerings. They are excellent, to be sure, but the real size advantage (the zooms, especially over FF) are not important for me (and I have the kit PZ zoom, tiny, slow, and compact for when that is absolutely necessary). The Sigmas are not as small as the Oly 12/2, but not far off, and they fit the body well.
The NEX grip is better than all the µ4/3rd's ones, IMHO. And while not being in the same aesthetic ballpark as the OM-D, in the hand it works better, for me.
My last point is that, using Aperture, I do find the Sony files allow better shadow and highlight recovery than the GH2 and OMD raw files.
I meant to add: 'Display' (top of rotary dial) activates a Level display, and Histogram (both so useful for landscapes); and the LHS of the same dial is Drive mode, by default. And I forgot to mention the new (and much improved) Mode dial (so no menus needed for any of these) AND the dial underneath it (and concentric with it) has a truly lovely tactile feel: the best dial control in the digital world, for me so far. This controls aperture (in A mode) or shutter (S). It feels lovely.
Personally, I feel the NEX 6 has been ignored in the plethora of new bodies released in the last year, but for me it is the best compromise.
After a great deal of experimenting, quite a bit of money, and a great deal of time and comparing like many of us here I have settled on a pair of NEX 6 bodies.
I do not like the menu system (who could?), but now they are set up, I only need to go to the menu to format a card—nothing else.
The combination of direct manual focus and focus peaking is extremely effective for any manual focus lens or even an autofocus lens when you're focusing manually. Shooting portraits of a reluctant mother in the garden last week I was able to focus on her eyeballs with 100% reliability.
White balance is on the function button. WB can be warmed or cooled with a single soft key press: now that's flexibility. I use this all the time. Moving the focus square is on the bottom soft key (B) and this stays active if you do not press "OK"—great for moving portrait situations. Exposure compensation is on a rotary dial. ISO is on a point on the same dial.
The lens lineup looks like this: CV 12/5.6 on adapter; works perfectly, unlike the NEX 7. The Sigma twins, truly excellent lenses, especially the 45mm EFOV 30/2.8. I will be posting an image or two if anyone's interested, over at the Fun with the NEX thread, probably later today.
Finally, I have pre-ordered the CV 50/1.5 and will be buying an OM 50/3.5 macro for the tabletop work. And I can experiment with many of the legacy lenses we all like here.
Why the NEX 6? Because its 1080p/24 video is superb, and its AF and follow focus works in video mode (essential for solo pieces to camera); its control of noise is excellent; the larger sensor (than µ4/3rds) is closer to the look I like (I shot MF and FF for many years, film and digital), and the excellent EVF. And this body is smaller in all dimensions than the OM-D, IIRC.
So, in sum: all manual controls for what I need; tremendous flexibility re. lens choice (and don't forget the Sigma twins for $199!!!), the Sigma 50/2.8 preordered for those times when only AF will do, and excellent battery life. Four genuine batteries: they are reasonably priced.
The only 'con' is that I can't see how to get 1/3 ƒ stops out of the ISO setting. I use M often, to get the shutter speed and aperture combo. I want, then use the ISO control for exposure—but would like a finer control over this.
This rig can shoot excellent stills in low light; excellent video in any light; and both bodies fit in a tiny bag (the Crumpler "Mild Enthusiast" bag; passports in the back!).
And I have owned all of the great µ4/3rds lenses (except the 75; I do not need this length) but I see no practical size advantage over the lineup I describe here compared to the µ4/3rds offerings. They are excellent, to be sure, but the real size advantage (the zooms, especially over FF) are not important for me (and I have the kit PZ zoom, tiny, slow, and compact for when that is absolutely necessary). The Sigmas are not as small as the Oly 12/2, but not far off, and they fit the body well.
The NEX grip is better than all the µ4/3rd's ones, IMHO. And while not being in the same aesthetic ballpark as the OM-D, in the hand it works better, for me.
My last point is that, using Aperture, I do find the Sony files allow better shadow and highlight recovery than the GH2 and OMD raw files.
I meant to add: 'Display' (top of rotary dial) activates a Level display, and Histogram (both so useful for landscapes); and the LHS of the same dial is Drive mode, by default. And I forgot to mention the new (and much improved) Mode dial (so no menus needed for any of these) AND the dial underneath it (and concentric with it) has a truly lovely tactile feel: the best dial control in the digital world, for me so far. This controls aperture (in A mode) or shutter (S). It feels lovely.
Personally, I feel the NEX 6 has been ignored in the plethora of new bodies released in the last year, but for me it is the best compromise.
Last edited:
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Interesting, Kit. Thanks for the write-up.
kit laughlin
Subscriber Member
Just added another paragraph, on the control interface. And (to Jorgen): when I post this shot of my Mother from the other day, you will laugh, I think!
kit laughlin
Subscriber Member
Peter Klein
New member
Some very interesting thoughts, Kit, thanks for posting. One thing this thread points out, I think, is that many cameras now more than pass the "good enough" test for many kinds of work, including much pro work. It then becomes a matter of which camera is best suited to the kind of things the user shoots, and which one fits our eyes and hands. Add a healthy dose of personal preference, design aesthetics, maybe a pinch of brand loyalty, plus how we were feeling when we handled the camera for the first time.
Me, I've been very happy with my OM-D, and that 45/1.8 I bought from you.
--Peter
Me, I've been very happy with my OM-D, and that 45/1.8 I bought from you.
--Peter
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Ha ha... cute
You can be happy that I'm not Apple of course. In that case, I would have sued your mother for copyright infringement and unlicensed use of at least 37 different patents (shaping a circle with a finger, holding a circle shaped by a finger up to the eye, both hands with fingers shaped as circles up to the eyes making them look like glasses etc., etc., etc.) :ROTFL:
kit laughlin
Subscriber Member
Peter, I am so please to hear that, and to Jorgen: don't think it did not occur to try to stop my Mother the moment I saw the infringements (in their infinite variety) being enacted!!! OTOH, she is a VERY stubborn woman!
Cheers, K
Cheers, K
jonoslack
Active member
HI Kit
I can quite see the point . . . although I wonder if you would have gone the same way if you had an OMD rather than the GH2.
I made a decision for µ43 for three main reasons
1. the Olympus works more like a camera
2. The in camera image stabilisation is stunning
3. the High Quality Panasonic f2.8 zooms (12-35 and 35-100)
But really it's down to the IS - using the lovely Leica R 80-200 f4 zoom on the OMD is just fabulous - on the NEX it was impossible. Simple as that!
all the best
kit laughlin
Subscriber Member
Hello Jono,
I did have an OM-D; one of the first ones here, probably, and I did travel quite a bit with it, too. I agree re. the IS; it does work well—but the compensation on the NEX side is that higher ISOs are useable as an antidote to the necessary faster shutter speeds that the absence of IS requires. I would prefer that the NEX 6 had the same IS as the OM-D. The PZ zoom does have IS, but I never use it!
As for the OM-D working more like a camera—well, once the NEX 6 is set up the way you want, it works very effectively as an image-capturing tool, though differently to all the film cameras I have owned (and which the OM-D does resemble more than most digital cameras, I will agree). But if one sets the inherited parameters aside, and approaches the NEX 6 as an image-maker, it can be set up to do everything the OM-D can, except the in-camera IS.
For me, the zooms are just too large for the OM-D (or the NEX bodies) and while I am sure they are excellent (and can do things that a pair of primes on two bodies cannot) I prefer to carry two bodies and two primes, the way I did in film days. I do like the form factor of the OM-D, except the buttons are a bit small for my hands, and the accessory grip is just an inert add-on (I had one of these, too). The aesthetics of the OM-D walk all over the NEX 6, but the more I use these bodies, the more I realise that they are simply function made into form (apart from the menus!), so have their own aesthetic in that respect. Best wishes, kl
I did have an OM-D; one of the first ones here, probably, and I did travel quite a bit with it, too. I agree re. the IS; it does work well—but the compensation on the NEX side is that higher ISOs are useable as an antidote to the necessary faster shutter speeds that the absence of IS requires. I would prefer that the NEX 6 had the same IS as the OM-D. The PZ zoom does have IS, but I never use it!
As for the OM-D working more like a camera—well, once the NEX 6 is set up the way you want, it works very effectively as an image-capturing tool, though differently to all the film cameras I have owned (and which the OM-D does resemble more than most digital cameras, I will agree). But if one sets the inherited parameters aside, and approaches the NEX 6 as an image-maker, it can be set up to do everything the OM-D can, except the in-camera IS.
For me, the zooms are just too large for the OM-D (or the NEX bodies) and while I am sure they are excellent (and can do things that a pair of primes on two bodies cannot) I prefer to carry two bodies and two primes, the way I did in film days. I do like the form factor of the OM-D, except the buttons are a bit small for my hands, and the accessory grip is just an inert add-on (I had one of these, too). The aesthetics of the OM-D walk all over the NEX 6, but the more I use these bodies, the more I realise that they are simply function made into form (apart from the menus!), so have their own aesthetic in that respect. Best wishes, kl
bensonga
Well-known member
First things first: I haven't read all of the posts on this thread.
That said...many of my friends have abandoned m4/3rds for Sony NEX and then Fuji (mostly X-E1).
With my Pana G1, GH2, Oly OMD and a bag full of good lenses, I'm starting to feel like a dinosaur.
Gotta keep looking at my m4/3rds photos....and ask myself...am I really unhappy with the quality of these images? No? Then why do I have this urge to follow the crowd and jump on the latest and greatest digital bandwagon? For now my answer is: I am not going to blow a lot of money on a new system when I'm quite happy with the m4/3rds system I have now.
Gary
That said...many of my friends have abandoned m4/3rds for Sony NEX and then Fuji (mostly X-E1).
With my Pana G1, GH2, Oly OMD and a bag full of good lenses, I'm starting to feel like a dinosaur.
Gotta keep looking at my m4/3rds photos....and ask myself...am I really unhappy with the quality of these images? No? Then why do I have this urge to follow the crowd and jump on the latest and greatest digital bandwagon? For now my answer is: I am not going to blow a lot of money on a new system when I'm quite happy with the m4/3rds system I have now.
Gary
dhsimmonds
New member
Gary, It just goes to show just how personal the choice of system camera is! I have gone completely the opposite way as I sold all of my Sony cameras and lenses together with FujiX1Pro with three lenses and Fuji X100, all in favour of two OMD bodies and a stack of mFT lenses!
This was after considerable use of all three systems side by side. Portability, weight and weather sealing considerations were high on the plus side for the OMD but overwhelming weight was given to IQ for my type of photography and image end use.
This was after considerable use of all three systems side by side. Portability, weight and weather sealing considerations were high on the plus side for the OMD but overwhelming weight was given to IQ for my type of photography and image end use.
V
Vivek
Guest
Gary, I thought the EM-5 with its 5 axis gyro is the latest and the greatest, no?
Good thread this.
My issue with 4/3ds is just that, the ratio. I shot a lot of pro stuff on E1's, back in the day, and the ratio suited my studio work but not my press stuff. It is purely a personal thing and I've dipped in and out of m4/3ds, currently have an E-PL3 kit I bought cheap. It's good to have in the car for photo opportunities that may crop up when I'm out and about. I'm looking at acceptable compact type cameras to replace it though, acceptable to Alamy that is.
Now I'm more or less retired, the Nikons have gone and I have a Pentax and 3 ltd lenses which currently supply Alamy. I had thought of ditching the Pentax for either an Olympus OMD or Panasonic G3 but just can't convince myself it's the way to go.
So where to go is still my dilemma, but it's one that is of lesser importance these days.
My issue with 4/3ds is just that, the ratio. I shot a lot of pro stuff on E1's, back in the day, and the ratio suited my studio work but not my press stuff. It is purely a personal thing and I've dipped in and out of m4/3ds, currently have an E-PL3 kit I bought cheap. It's good to have in the car for photo opportunities that may crop up when I'm out and about. I'm looking at acceptable compact type cameras to replace it though, acceptable to Alamy that is.
Now I'm more or less retired, the Nikons have gone and I have a Pentax and 3 ltd lenses which currently supply Alamy. I had thought of ditching the Pentax for either an Olympus OMD or Panasonic G3 but just can't convince myself it's the way to go.
So where to go is still my dilemma, but it's one that is of lesser importance these days.
jonoslack
Active member
HI Gary
Well, I made a conscious decision after running NEX and µ43 alongside each other, and one of the guys in the office is on the brink of changing from Fuji to µ43.
My only problem is David's - I prefer 3x2 to 4x3 - in landscape at any rate (in portrait I feel the other way around).
Before the OMD I really didn't feel there was a good enough sensor in µ43, but that's all changed now and I think we can expect more excellent Sony sensors in Olympus cameras in the future.
all the best
Shashin
Well-known member
Gary, I thought you were saving up for a Pentax 645D? (The Macro 4/3rds)
bensonga
Well-known member
LOL...yes, I did say that, didn't I?
A Pentax 645D purchase is on the back burner for now.But that is another reason to stick with my m4/3rds setup. I haven't bought any new lenses for it since last summer. I haven't used it much in the past six months, since I didn't travel this winter and motorcycle season is just now getting underway.
Guess I was just feeling a bit out there in left field, as so many of my friends have been jumping over to Fuji.
I did see and hold a GH-3 for the first time yesterday. I like the size and controls of the GH-3 better than my GH-2, so maybe I'll just sell the G1, GH-2 and/or OMD and settle on the GH-3. For whatever reason, I've never really warmed up to the OMD...probably because I haven't taken the time to really learn the different controls, menus, interface etc.
Gary