Has time and technology caught up with m43rds?

[Amin]

I'm currently using 4 systems: MFT, NEX, Fuji, and Leica M

MFT gives me a few things none of the others do:

1) It still has the best AF system for my needs of any camera system I have ever owned, including Nikon D700/D600

2) It can go smaller than the rest. My E-PM2 and Pana 14 or Rokinon fisheye or Olympus 45 are a good bit smaller than comparable combos in other interchangeable lens systems

3) It's got a more versatile lens lineup than the others. The Olympus 75, for example, has no replacement in any of the small systems. Closest thing would be an APS-C camera with a 100mm prime, and none of those give the size/performance. Also no replacement for my Pana 100-300 in other smallish systems. Etc etc.

4) Better stabilization - The OMD stabilizes primes (native and adapted) better than any other camera I have used.

5) Touch autofocus and shutter release - MFT cameras still have the best implementation of this


Eventually the other systems may catch up in all respects, but as long as we have the single sensor camera, the 4/3 sensor size will represent one compromise between size and capability, and it should continue to allow for smaller gear than a larger sensor would do.

There is one as of yet unexplored way to continue to push the sensor technology forward, and that is to develop specialized low base ISO sensors for landscape photography. A MFT camera with a base ISO of 25 should be able to achieve the same dynamic and tonal range as a full frame sensor with a base ISO of 100. A great prime which is optimized for low f-stops, paired with a MFT camera with a base ISO of 25, could be a mean landscape pairing.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

With digital, we have lost the option of choosing films for our cameras, limiting our options within one system. With my OM-1, I could choose among an endless variety of films. With m4/3, I'm limited to a few sensors that all aim for the same thing: technical perfection, particularly at high ISO. There's no Tri-X camera and no Tech Pan camera. It wouldn't be practical (although the MM is a step in the right direction).

So, I use different systems for different creative expressions, and for an increasing part of my non-commercial photography: film. Sometimes, I feel that many digital cameras try to be Hybrid Ferrari SUV Minivans. But having limitations can be good sometimes. There's a reason why most Ferraris have only two seats.

M4/3 cameras are the worst, of course. The GH1/2/3 are the real Swiss Army Knives of the camera world, doing anything from ultra wide angle architectural photography to HD video of eagles in flight a mile away, with viewfinder here and articulated LCD there and in a pinch, they can do action photography as well, almost replacing my D2Xs that can only do one thing: Great colour at low ISO very fast.

Last Christmas Eve, I went with my father and some friends to one of our favourite restaurants to have our annual Christmas dinner. Since my father is rather old, every Christmas may be his last, so I always take a camera, hoping to get a photo of him that not least he himself can be happy with. I took the OM-2, a 50mm f/1.4 and Tri-X, no flash. I got my shot. He's happy with it and everybody else say: That's your father!

Could I have taken the same shot with an OM-D? Yes, most probably. Would I have taken the same shot with the OM-D? No, most probably not. It would have been cleaner, have colour, less grain and I would have had 15 good photos to choose from. I know now that I prefer the single shot that I did get. In a way, the grainy b&w photo looks more real than any digital, clean high ISO interpretation of reality.

Is m4/3 a technoligically dead end? Most probably, yes, but it isn't dead yet. Film has been dead for a long time of course, or is it just overmatured? But the challenge of wringing some life out each cannister of flimsy stuff keeps me alive, or at least more alive than if the only option was to trust Sony for a good portrait of my ageing father in a somewhat dimly lit restaurant.

Has technology caught up with m4/3? No, not yet. I would rather say that it's the other way around. m4/3 is the state of technology right now. In a few years, there will be something even cooler, even more advanced that we cannot even dream about today. Hopefully, I'm retired by then, shooting water buffalos on Tri-X at some remote valley in Nakhon Nowhere.

"It is a strange quirk of history that current reviewers of digital cameras give so much attention to an issue (ISO) that makes them in fact film emulsion testers and not camera testers."

- Erwin Puts

But don't get me wrong. I love my m4/3 cameras and lenses. They are very useful. They are just a bit too much sometimes

 

[biglouis]

Peter, Amin and Jorgen, thanks for some more valuable input.

Nice picture, Jorgen - great atmosphere - it is why most of my work is film at present.

Peter, your examples are very compelling. Maybe my issue is a disappointment with the GH-3 which is a weird camera by my reckoning and my reticence at going from Panasonic to Olympus in order to gain some IQ improvements.

That said the OMD is receiving some significant discounting at present (probably a new one on the horizon) and is very attractive for that reason.

LouisB

 

[henningw]

I like travelling. I like taking pictures. I'm not travelling with a ton of equipment anymore. So the OM-D and some lenses go where I go whenever I want versatility.

If I need to do a job, FF Canon does it because of TS-E lenses and such. When suitable, I will usually prefer to take digital Leica equipment.

The smallest DSLR may not be much larger than the OM-D, but the lenses sure are, and the results are not necessarily better. A couple of years ago, before going to Kenya I tested a Canon 7D with 100-400 against a Panasonic GH-2 and 100-300 to see which could actually provide me with better images and detail at the long end. Due as much to quality control and lens variability (I've had a number of Canon 100-400 lenses, and none were even across the field, the GH-2 produced consistently higher IQ. The downside of the m43 systems, to date, is that focus tracking is absent for all intents.

I recently traveled to India, and the trip included portions which required long telephoto work. I too 2 OM-D bodies and 5 Panasonic lenses from 7mm to 300mm including the two fast zooms and the 25/1.4. The overall image quality, while not as good as I can get with the M240 and 50/1.4asph, is completely satisfying and I would do it again. Weather and dust sealed (important in India) with the most commonly used lenses, versatile and very good IQ up to 1600 ISO and outstanding stabilisation made for very good results in a size and form factor that was easily manageable.

When I have a specific shot in mind, I can get out larger, heavier equipment and maybe a tripod and produce a better file, but I've also made a number of enlargements from OM-D files at 30" width that are better than I was ever able to produce from 645 film.

Henning

 

[BradA]

Thanks for all the posts. Really useful information and ideas. I am the person who keeps on stating it is the photographer and not the camera that makes the shot! Maybe I ought to remember that from time to time

LouisB

Back in the early 70s I was doing quite a bit of darkroom work. I've only recently returned to photography as a semi-serious hobby. I really agree with the last part of the statement I quoted, it's the person behind the camera that counts the most. I think I take a lot of technically good but boring photographs. I'm really focusing on learning to see better. As for what the future holds for m43 who knows. Technology is changing so rapidly. But there are so many great cameras out there. I'm not saying we shouldn't look at what cameras and systems offer, but I do think we should be looking at them as tools that meet our own needs. And everyone has different needs. I know the reasons I have an E-M5. It's a better camera than I am a photographer. I'd love a FF system but I'd leave in the car or at home way too often. And I'll likely always have a good quality compact available to toss in a pocket when even the m43 cameras are too big.

 

[Riley]

mirrorless of any breed will always exceed SLRs for video
m43rds has the largest lens choice of any platform
m43rds has the best dedicated primes in existence in the crop camera field
m43rds noise per DoF is no worse than anything else, better than D800

cut across to DPRs GH3 review RAW studio samples
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gh3/19
compare APSC current sweetheart D5200 in high range ISOs, it isnt better from that PoV
indeed go to the extreme corner target and see what you can see

I think its good to reflect on 'things to complain about' as it keeps manufacturers on their 'A' game

 

[monza]

There will always be a better camera

This about sums it up.

There is always something 'better.' Maybe faster, sharper, speedier, or whatever-er.

Most of the time, 'better' comes with strings attached.

Micro 4/3 is quite a success. It's matured very quickly. It wasn't that long ago that the G1 was all there was...and your choice of lenses was the 14-42...

The bottom-line for me is shooting enjoyment, and enjoying the results.

It's no longer about chasing technology. That's a treadmill that never stops...

For the same reason, I drive a 15 year old car. The later models put it to shame technologically, but it works just as well for me today as when I bought it ten years ago. It also gets just as much attention as the new ones.

 

[RVB]

This about sums it up.

There is always something 'better.' Maybe faster, sharper, speedier, or whatever-er.

Most of the time, 'better' comes with strings attached.

Micro 4/3 is quite a success. It's matured very quickly. It wasn't that long ago that the G1 was all there was...and your choice of lenses was the 14-42...

The bottom-line for me is shooting enjoyment, and enjoying the results.

It's no longer about chasing technology. That's a treadmill that never stops...

For the same reason, I drive a 15 year old car. The later models put it to shame technologically, but it works just as well for me today as when I bought it ten years ago. It also gets just as much attention as the new ones.

The air cooled 993 still sounds the best... :thumbup:

 

[monza]

Yes, especially with the muffler bypass mod.

 

[willie_901]

The fundamental handicap of the m4/3 platform is the signal to noise ratio disadvantage due to the sensor area. Keeping perspective ( camera to subject distance) constant smaller sensors require larger apertures to record the same amount of signal (photons). The noise is not a function of sensor size so a larger sensor requires less lens surface area to achieve the same S/N. Because dynamic range is highly dependent on S/N, lens wide aperture is important here as well.

The above is more completely and clearly discussed here.

LumoLabs -- Camera Equivalence -- Whitepaper

Of course reduced sensor area and the 4:3 aspect ratio reduces optical design challenges and minimizes manufacturing costs. At the same time the availability, cost, size and weight of fast (f 1.2 or faster) m4/3 lenses does not seem to reflect the sensor size and format advantages. To collect more light (signal) something has to be bigger.

The good news is the advantages of m4/3 systems meet the needs of a large number of photographers. Many of us do not require the highest possible S/N to meet our goals. The m4/3 sensor area in combination with f 1.7 or slower lenses does have a positive impact on AF. The point can be made what good is S/N and dynamic range if the focus is off?

The bad news is technologies and the creativity of competitors now provide a choice inbewteen large, heavy, loud DSLRs and more convenient m4/3 systems.

For my work the sweet spot is an APS-C mirrorless camera. For others 24 x 36 sensor cameras are a better choice... and for others the m4/3 systems are best. The APS-C mirrorless systems will take market share from both traditional DSLRs and m4/3 cameras.

 

[biglouis]

The review from Dpreview of the GH-3 is the equivalent of damning with faint praise. Conclusion seems to be, the best video camera you can buy, oh and it does decent still photographs.

I am now partly moving on from m43rds. I've acquired a Sony RX-1 and in combination with my Sigma DP2M I have 35mm and 50mm focal lengths covered. I'm going to sell most of my m43rds lenses and keep just the GH-2 body, 20mm and 100-300mm - the latter for backyard birding shots.

Thanks for all the advice and comments in this thread.

LouisB

 

[Riley]

The above is more completely and clearly discussed here.

LumoLabs -- Camera Equivalence -- Whitepaper

"So, this little exercise shows that camera's with increasing crop factor suffer in corner resolution too."

Sorry but, this isnt my experience.
More often than not performance of FF Ultra Wide Angle suffers in the corners, particularly at wide apertures.
He may be able to find examples that prove contrary to that point, Im sure I can nominate a few too, but as data points they are fliers to this well known axiom.

Then theres an assumption about DR and sensor size.
At the present moment despite quite large Mp sensors producing very large file sizes with consequences on editing speeds and capacities to transmit easily for little if any resolution gain over other optimised systems,
the highest DR producing camera body is APSC

Another is with viewfinders
Perhaps 5D is a little old world now, but my E5 OVF is a much nicer OVF to use, neither are especially suitable for MF
It seems my GH2 EVF, despite its ills and there are more than a few, is the best and quickest to use VF system for critical focus.

Another field of endeavour the article doenst mention is video
Most of you would be aware of the Super 16 Black Magic body presently in release
At barely 2.1Mp, compare its output to 22Mp FF 5DIII
http://vimeo.com/49875510
http://vimeo.com/62948741

I dont think there will ever be a particular camera or camera format that aces all the rest
the field of photography as an art is just too widely dispersed, and its user base suffers many and varied field derived constraints
IMO there are enough curveballs out there to keep it interesting

 

[ptomsu]

As great as m43 is, it has its sure limitations in the small format.

Today it turns out that APSC seems to be the best compromise - possible pixel density in combination with nice high ISO results, camera size (see Sony NEX and Fuji X) etc.

So I think that m43 has reached its culmination WRT meaningful use of technology. Just think about how long we are already stuck with 16MP (4 years or so) while APSC shows already perfect results with 24MP.

Question remaining is - what does an individual really need and want. For good quality with small size m43 is still leading.

 

[dhsimmonds]

The review from Dpreview of the GH-3 is the equivalent of damning with faint praise. Conclusion seems to be, the best video camera you can buy, oh and it does decent still photographs.

I am now partly moving on from m43rds. I've acquired a Sony RX-1 and in combination with my Sigma DP2M I have 35mm and 50mm focal lengths covered. I'm going to sell most of my m43rds lenses and keep just the GH-2 body, 20mm and 100-300mm - the latter for backyard birding shots.

Thanks for all the advice and comments in this thread.

LouisB

We shall miss you from this board Louis, but wish you well with your new purchases. I had to grin a little when I read of your acquisition of a Sony RX1
as I well remember your penchant for the true 35mm FOV. It is a great camera and I wish you joy with it.

For my part I am delighted with my brace of OM-D's but still eagerly awaiting the next incarnation from Oly. I am advised that it may have hybrid phase and contrast detect AF, which should permit proper focus tracking which is for my useage, is it's only achilles heel at the moment.

 

[jonoslack]

HI There all
I'm late to this post (my OMD has been away having it's 'cracked plastic around the LCD' issue fixed - they only took 2 weeks, and replaced the whole LCD - free of course.

It's an interesting discussion - my view is that as sensor technology improves µ43 will just get more and more compelling, it already has such a fine lineup of lenses, and now Olympus have started using Sony sensors things can only get better.

Going out shooting yesterday with the OMD and the two Panny f2.8 zooms was a positive joy in every sense of the word.

For me, the advantage of APSc was much more in the quality of the sensors than the size difference (after all, if you look at the sensor height difference it really isn't that much - as long as your happy with 3x4 rather than 2x3 ratio).

But the package seems to be much smaller than APSc - if I want bigger, then I'll have full frame, which really is bigger.

Until then the combination of the OMD and the Leica M suits me very well.

All the best

 

[DReilly]

I think m43 is here to stay for a while. The Nex system, Panasonic's offerings, they all lag far behind in quality lenses at a reasonable price. I actually think it's APS-C that may have run its course, at least in SLRs. m43 has the mini advantage and lenses that match...many APS-C SLRs and most lenses are not that much smaller than their full frame cousins. As full frame gets less expensive, it seems to me that APS-C is in the uncomfortable middle position. And the Nex and Panasonic systems that are APS-C, and the APS-C fixed-lens cameras coming out now...it all seems like these will eat away at that middle field. For the most compact system with great lenses, m43 still has it.

I can't back this up with any sales data, etc, but it's just a musing based on watching m43 develop. 4/3 in general is a pretty remarkable story.

 

[ShooterSteve]

First of all, I was wondering yesterday why APS-C is still around? Just the opposite of some of the thinking here. I think the size of M4/3 cameras and lenses are the perfect partner to my full size systems. Where as the APS cameras, including the Sony NEX are just too bulky when you take into consideration the size of the lenses. I always thought APS-C was just a temporary solution until manufactures finally got to full size 35mm sensors. In my experience with three Canon Rebels that I purchased over the years, is that they image quality was inferior to my 5D's, so I stopped using them. I feel for the size M4/3 offers equal or better image quality at half the bulk.

But I have another observation I made last week while in NYC on a shoot. I went to the Aperture Foundation Gallery and looked at an exhibition of prints. All prints were from 11x14 to 16x20 and a few larger. I was amazed at the poor technical quality of the images. They were soft and grainy with very little shadow detail. I'll bet in most cases an iPhone would make a better print than the one's I looked at. BUT - it didn't matter -all that mattered was the images them selves which were fantastic. Standing a few feet back, you didn't see softness or grain, you just saw the power of the images themselves.

I too get caught up in technical quality because some of my work requires large prints for architects or advertising clients. But for my personal work - M4/3rds is more than enough quality in an excellent package, that can be carried in my pocket.

My two cents....

 

[jonoslack]

First of all, I was wondering yesterday why APS-C is still around? Just the opposite of some of the thinking here. I think the size of M4/3 cameras and lenses are the perfect partner to my full size systems. Where as the APS cameras, including the Sony NEX are just too bulky when you take into consideration the size of the lenses. I always thought APS-C was just a temporary solution until manufactures finally got to full size 35mm sensors. In my experience with three Canon Rebels that I purchased over the years, is that they image quality was inferior to my 5D's, so I stopped using them. I feel for the size M4/3 offers equal or better image quality at half the bulk.

But I have another observation I made last week while in NYC on a shoot. I went to the Aperture Foundation Gallery and looked at an exhibition of prints. All prints were from 11x14 to 16x20 and a few larger. I was amazed at the poor technical quality of the images. They were soft and grainy with very little shadow detail. I'll bet in most cases an iPhone would make a better print than the one's I looked at. BUT - it didn't matter -all that mattered was the images them selves which were fantastic. Standing a few feet back, you didn't see softness or grain, you just saw the power of the images themselves.

I too get caught up in technical quality because some of my work requires large prints for architects or advertising clients. But for my personal work - M4/3rds is more than enough quality in an excellent package, that can be carried in my pocket.

My two cents....

Hi Steve
Great post - and can I add my two pennies.
I shoot with FF Leica rangefinders . . . . and the OMD with various µ43 lenses. To my mind FF and µ43 makes a great combination.
Whether we're right or not I'd agree that it ought to be APSc that's in the firing line.

All the best

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

To my mind FF and µ43 makes a great combination.

+1 but... APS-C is still great for a few things, like sports photography (more reach than 35mm and with the still important OVF), and some of the cameras are rather compact. I'm on three digital formats at the moment, and I keep asking myself if a D5200 would be a more sensible option than m4/3, particularly after Sigma's latest announcement. It would certainly be cheaper for me. Having two systems is a real drain on the wallet, even if I try to convince myself that it's something that I can live with.

If photography wasn't part of my job, m4/3 would probably be the only thing I needed, but it isn't really there yet for all professional assignments.

 

[ustein]

>BUT - it didn't matter -all that mattered was the images them selves which were fantastic. Standing a few feet back, you didn't see softness or grain, you just saw the power of the images themselves.

I had the same experience at the Carmel Weston Gallery (one of the top galleries in the US). It was the exhibition or Mexican scenes by a well known artist and printed with Cibachrome. None was critical sharp but all the images were wonderful in terms of colors and composition.