Menu
What's new
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!

4/3rds and the "35mm aesthetic"

M

Mitch Alland

Guest
The reason I have been shooting small-sensor cameras is that they seem to be the closest to the feeling of the "35mm aesthetic", typified for me by shooting with the Leica M6 with Tri-X or HP5+, as opposed to the M8, which has, as Sean has written in his reviews, more of a medium-fornat to look. On this respect, how does the look of the 4/3rds system fit in: how would you characterise the "4/3rds look" and the experience of using these cameras?

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Mitch Alland said:
The reason I have been shooting small-sensor cameras is that they seem to be the closest to the feeling of the "35mm aesthetic", typified for me by shooting with the Leica M6 with Tri-X or HP5+, as opposed to the M8, which has, as Sean has written in his reviews, more of a medium-fornat to look. On this respect, how does the look of the 4/3rds system fit in: how would you characterise the "4/3rds look" and the experience of using these cameras?

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
Click to expand...
It's an interesting blend. The noise levels in the files tend to be just slightly higher than those from an APS-C sensor camera (like an R-D1 or a D300) but the effective depth of field, of course, is noticeably deeper.

Also very noticeable to me is, of course, the change in aspect ratio (as compared to other DSLRs, etc.). See that Digilux 3 review to get a sense of this.

Also, I don't feel like small sensor cameras have a look that necessarily reminds me of 35 mm. They're really their own thing, to my eyes.

Cheers,

Sean
 
jonoslack

jonoslack

Active member
Hi All
I've been using 4/3 since the beginning (first of all with the E1 (which I still have and use) and then with the E330, E510 and now the E3).

I'm still not convinced that I prefer the 4/3 aspect ratio, but it is growing on me. As for the noise issue, there has been a lot of talk that this is inevitable, but when you realise that the 4/3 sensor is 13.5mm high, and the APS/c around 15.5, 2mm is hardly a huge difference! Of course the sensor IS shorter, but if you end up cropping . . .

The E3 really does bear this out - a friend sent me some 3200 images taken at a play which are completely useable (with a little help). I've found that 1600 is great, and that 800 is hardly worse than 100.

The depth of field issue also needs treating with some caution for the same reason and because diffraction tends to cut in sooner with a smaller sensor.

All in all I'm not sure that the aesthetic is so very different, but I do think it has a lot going for it.
 
Riley

Riley

New member
The basis for 4/3rds that i enjoy is the full use of the lens available apertures. For even wide open the glass holds the edges and there is little if any vignetting, I don't have to care about and nor should i, that other systems need to be stopped down. While diffraction is in much earlier, the MTF of the lenses doesn't drop off very sharply, so I find that less of an issue.

We have come through the first generation of noisier sensors and low iso performance, of small dim OVF's , of poor AF performance, and with delight find myself now with an OVF bigger than 40D, competitive iso to 800, and very fast AF.

I find 4/3rds an innovative field that offers cameras with a difference and optical excellence.
 
Jack

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I don't own a 4/3rds camera and frankly never took them seriously. I then happened upon a stunning exhibit of B&W images taken throughout the SouthWest. They were all printed out A3, well displayed and stunning imagery --- and all taken with a 4/3rds camera. Made a believer out of me ;) Love to see some images posted here!
 
jonoslack

jonoslack

Active member
Riley said:
The basis for 4/3rds that i enjoy is the full use of the lens available apertures. For even wide open the glass holds the edges and there is little if any vignetting, I don't have to care about and nor should i, that other systems need to be stopped down. While diffraction is in much earlier, the MTF of the lenses doesn't drop off very sharply, so I find that less of an issue.

We have come through the first generation of noisier sensors and low iso performance, of small dim OVF's , of poor AF performance, and with delight find myself now with an OVF bigger than 40D, competitive iso to 800, and very fast AF.

I find 4/3rds an innovative field that offers cameras with a difference and optical excellence.
Click to expand...
HI There
I completely agree - the lenses are wonderful, the expensive pro-range are obviously splendid, but unlike any other manufacturer I know, the mid range lenses are also wonderful, and, as you say, can be shot wide open with no qualms.

The believable weatherproofing is another factor (do you remember that mad fool who shot his E1 holding it under water?).

For me, the real deal is the colour that Olympus manage to crank out, model after model
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Mitch Alland said:
You're right, Sean, the small-sensor format has it's own look, but, in terms of grain and gradation, it's close to the 35mm format; where it differs is in the huge DOF.

—Mitch/Bangkkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
Click to expand...
Hi Mitch,

At lower ISO levels, I think 35 mm film has finer gradation and a richer, overall, tonality (for better or worse). Also, of course, there are so many different ways 35 mm film can look. People often compare various digital files to Tri-X but Tri-X itself can look very different depending on how it is exposed and developed.

When the first DSLRs were evolving, comparisons were constantly being made with 35 mm film. It wasn't until they hit about 6 MP (with an APS-C sensor) that many photographers were willing to transition from film to digital.

I don't think that small sensor camera pictures look like 35 mm film prints, I think they have a different look which really is specific to their format.

Cheers,

Sean
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
I've always found 4/3 interesting and reviewed the E-1 for LuLa (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/e1-2nd.shtml) because I thought it was such a promising camera. I owned one for awhile, in fact. I've been waiting for a successor to that camera for a long time. If the ISO 1600 files are good, and resilient, my wife may switch to Olympus for her work. The weather seals are important, the lenses are quite good and the AF on the example I tried in NYC was excellent. In camera IS is also a real asset, as I found in the K10D.

So the million dollar questions for Melissa are: Is ISO 1600 really 1600? (It wasn't with the E1) and how well do those files hold up for professional work that is often shot at that ISO.

Cheers,

Sean
 
jonoslack

jonoslack

Active member
Sean_Reid said:
I've always found 4/3 interesting and reviewed the E-1 for LuLa (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/e1-2nd.shtml) because I thought it was such a promising camera. I owned one for awhile, in fact. I've been waiting for a successor to that camera for a long time. If the ISO 1600 files are good, and resilient, my wife may switch to Olympus for her work. The weather seals are important, the lenses are quite good and the AF on the example I tried in NYC was excellent. In camera IS is also a real asset, as I found in the K10D.

So the million dollar questions for Melissa are: Is ISO 1600 really 1600? (It wasn't with the E1) and how well do those files hold up for professional work that is often shot at that ISO.

Cheers,

Sean
Click to expand...
Well Sean - I don't shoot a lot of high ISO, and with the E1 I wouldn't have dreamed of using 800, let alone 1600. I've taken a few 1600 ISO shots with the E3, and they're fine - absolutely useable.

You have the good fortune to be able to try one out for a few weeks so she can decide whether she wants it or not.

The only think I would say, is that the menu system seems to have been designed to be good for the long term user . . . not the first time user. I think this is a good thing, but it is engendering quite a lot of remarks. Best not to write it off too soon!
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Hi Jono,

She's not fussy like that. It doesn't take her long to figure out whether or not a camera will work for her but an unfamiliar menu system wouldn't be an issue. Poor controls design would be - but that wasn't my sense of the E3 at all.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Jorgen Udvang

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
When I get the exposure spot on, ISO 800 is absolutely usable, even with the E-1. Here's a sample: E-1 at ISO 800, 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 at 11mm and f/2.8, 1/13 sec, handheld.



Here's another, same lens, but at f/4.5 and 1/100 sec, also ISO 800



What I find particularly useful is the deep DOF with WA lenses. I never saw the point with shallow depth of field with most WA photography anyway. Rather tack sharp all the way than slightly OOF background.

Another aspect that has contributed in making the E-1 my most used camera is the aspect ratio. For most of my photography, I find that I crop less, and mostly not at all, compared to 3:2.
 
Last edited:
Riley

Riley

New member
those are some very nice shots Jorgen, and i agree with you on the available DoF which can really screw you with a larger frame system.

Riley
 
jonoslack

jonoslack

Active member
Guy Mancuso said:
I like the idea of a 100mm 2.8 being a 200 2.8 since I have runway stuff to do next month. Hmmm
Click to expand...
Hi Guy
You know it makes sense. Nice little kit:
E3
12-60 f2.8 f4
50-200 f2.8 f3.5
that'll give you a 24-400 equivalent, nice light setup and very able
and all for less than the price of a WATE!
 
Jorgen Udvang

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
jonoslack said:
Hi Guy
You know it makes sense. Nice little kit:
E3
12-60 f2.8 f4
50-200 f2.8 f3.5
that'll give you a 24-400 equivalent, nice light setup and very able
and all for less than the price of a WATE!
Click to expand...
This is exactly my thought as well. Add the Leica 25/1.4 or Sigma 30/1.4 for low-light and shallow DOF and the Zuiko 50/2.0 macro (or the 100/2.0 macro when it arrives), and it's a very compact, very complete kit. If I didn't get this terrible lens lust now and then, I could probably live very well with that combo.

Another OM lens that works well on 4/3, is the OM Zuiko 90/2.0 macro. Slightly bigger than the 100/2.8, but faster and sharper. Unfortunately, it's also a bit expensive.
 
Guy Mancuso

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
jonoslack said:
Hi Guy
You know it makes sense. Nice little kit:
E3
12-60 f2.8 f4
50-200 f2.8 f3.5
that'll give you a 24-400 equivalent, nice light setup and very able
and all for less than the price of a WATE!
Click to expand...
Hmmm you guys got me thinking seriously about this. last thing i want is a big camera and i really don't need ultimate image quailty for this runway stuff
 
jonoslack

jonoslack

Active member
Guy Mancuso said:
Hmmm you guys got me thinking seriously about this. last thing i want is a big camera and i really don't need ultimate image quailty for this runway stuff
Click to expand...
Hi Guy
You aren't going to lose much image quality - look at my comparison on the Leica forum . . . .come to think of it, I'll link the photo here - you pick which is the Leica M8 with 75 'cron and which is the E3 with 50mm f2 :)

Mark Cargill did a detailed comparison of image quality against the Nikon D300, and up to 1600 ISO the E3 won convincingly. I'm noticing no problems printing up to 17X24, and I'm sure you could go a great deal bigger.

Ask Sean - the great quality of the Zuiko lenses, and now with the new E3 sensor, you don't need to consider the IQ a compromise.

this is a 100% crop from the middle of the frame:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top