peterb
Member
In the last few months I've been following musings of a U.K.-based photographer in a blog he calls Sound Image Plus (here's his website: The SOUNDIMAGEPLUS blog).
Today he had a rather interesting post on the state of mFT (which he's quite a fan of by the way). He spoke of where things are right now among the so-called "professional" cameras and the viability of mFT in that universe. While on the one hand he said larger formats still had some advantages in terms of high ISO performance those differences were much smaller than they were a few years ago. But he said to get that advantage you paid a price in terms of weight and bulk. And among one of the two audiences he described (professionals looking for less back breaking equipment to lug around) that mFT was offering a more viable alternative with the latest sensors, optics and bodies that give you a lot in a much smaller and lighter package than you have with a DSLR. Even the two svelte-r offerings from Nikon and Canon. He even likened mFT to film cameras (like the Nikon FM2 and others) in the sense that in their day they offered viable alternatives to much heavier and bulkier film cameras. (Interestingly enough he also pointed out that, while the images from FX cameras have their advantages, the results from mFT are vastly superior to ANYTHING you could have gotten from 35mm film in the old days.)
Anyway that got me thinking. I've now owned a Lumix G1 almost since it was first introduced. And I've enjoyed using it ever since (although I'm now looking to upgrade to the new GH3). I've found the format almost Golidlocks-esque: not to big and not too small but somehow just right (for me anyway). With the latest iterations able to produce pleasing (and pixel-peepable) prints as large as 20 x 30 (which with a little extra room a sizable border around the image area is certainly large enough for galleries.)
But I'd love to hear some of your thoughts about the state of mFT today.
Thanks!
Peter
Today he had a rather interesting post on the state of mFT (which he's quite a fan of by the way). He spoke of where things are right now among the so-called "professional" cameras and the viability of mFT in that universe. While on the one hand he said larger formats still had some advantages in terms of high ISO performance those differences were much smaller than they were a few years ago. But he said to get that advantage you paid a price in terms of weight and bulk. And among one of the two audiences he described (professionals looking for less back breaking equipment to lug around) that mFT was offering a more viable alternative with the latest sensors, optics and bodies that give you a lot in a much smaller and lighter package than you have with a DSLR. Even the two svelte-r offerings from Nikon and Canon. He even likened mFT to film cameras (like the Nikon FM2 and others) in the sense that in their day they offered viable alternatives to much heavier and bulkier film cameras. (Interestingly enough he also pointed out that, while the images from FX cameras have their advantages, the results from mFT are vastly superior to ANYTHING you could have gotten from 35mm film in the old days.)
Anyway that got me thinking. I've now owned a Lumix G1 almost since it was first introduced. And I've enjoyed using it ever since (although I'm now looking to upgrade to the new GH3). I've found the format almost Golidlocks-esque: not to big and not too small but somehow just right (for me anyway). With the latest iterations able to produce pleasing (and pixel-peepable) prints as large as 20 x 30 (which with a little extra room a sizable border around the image area is certainly large enough for galleries.)
But I'd love to hear some of your thoughts about the state of mFT today.
Thanks!
Peter