Michiel Schierbeek
Well-known member
Don't worry there are partys everywhere...... and from time to time i think i have to leave the party ....
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!
Don't worry there are partys everywhere...... and from time to time i think i have to leave the party ....
I have used a variety of O and P lenses on a GX1, G5 and OM-D and have not noticed any issues at all. (I don't own the 20/1.7 so I can't comment on the 'chattering' issue with that lens. IIRC, Pansonic bodies correct for LCAs in-camera, but Olympus bodies don't, but I think that's the only design/spec issue between the two branches of the m4/3 family.Jono, interesting advice.
Is the Olympus body 100% compatible with all Panasonic lenses? I thought I read somewhere about some features on Panasonic lenses not working as well with Olympus bodies?
LouisB
Right now, m43 hits the sweet spot for me for general SLR-type photography. That's as opposed to rangefinder, which area the Leica M's fulfill for me. Professionally I mostly use Canon, as they have the superb 17 and 24mm TSE lenses.
In prints, the extra quality from the full frame cameras rarely makes a difference over m43 images.
When carrying the cameras, especially with a range of lenses, the difference between m43 and FF is huge, and APSC is unfortunately much closer to FF than m43. The NEX cameras are fine if you can live with one or two lenses of modest focal range, but lose their size advantage as soon as you demand something more.
Depending on where I'm going I carry 2 m43 bodies and the 7-14, 12-35, 35-100 and 100-300 along with maybe the 20 or 25/0.95 all in one Domke 803 bag. A Nikon or Canon FF camera with 2 moderate lenses will also fully fill the bag. Alternatively, I can also use the 7-14, 14-45 and 45-200 with the 12, 20 and 45 providing speed. This also fits in the 803, and provides for somewhat different situations while being lighter.
As has been noted, the biggest downside to m43 cameras is the very poor focus tracking performance. If I need that, I still use an SLR with mirror and prism.
The main thing is that the m43 system allows me to take a very flexible system with me easily, without having to compromise lens selection due to size and weight, and I always take the best pictures with the camera and lens I have with me.
Those days when I go out with only a 35 or 50 for street shooting, the M9 with a Summilux is a much better choice (or possibly an RX1; I haven't yet tried one), but it and I fare poorly when I am on vacation in Africa and I wish to take a frame filling shot of a lion.
The OM-D is now a camera that has reached a certain 'good enough' level. There will be many advances, but for me at present the OM-D with a decent lens has reached a certain Goldilocks stage.
If some company comes up with a multilayer sensor that doesn't have all the negatives of the Foveon sensor but retains the good points, has a decent system behind it and a reasonable price, I might go for it. Hopefully, it will be an m43 format.
Henning
mFT = Micro Four-Thirds = M4/3.I suppose if I knew what mft was I might care, but I don't, so I don't.
- Leigh
It's worse than that, Leigh. We're talking about mFT CSCs.I suppose if I knew what mft was I might care, but I don't, so I don't.
- Leigh
:OT:Unfortunately, the internet resembles an explosion in an acronym factory.
- Leigh
Oh, but it's very on topic. There's an ATM next to the entrance of my camera pusher, and I frequently have to go out to use it when I unexpectedly find an item in the shop that I can't live without.glad we are so off topic
I took Amin's statement to be simply that were he forcedSo are you assuming that your life will be over in just a few days?? ;-) Technology changes that fast currently that I would be rather careful with that kind of (absolute) statement.
This thread has turned out much better than I expected. The thoughtful views have been most enjoyable reading.
Here's what I like about mFT (Mind you, I'll be speaking mostly about the Lumix side of the equation as I have very little experience with Olympus).
1. (Like most people here) The size. In the digital age I was pretty much chagrined by the hefty offerings that seemed like people were hauling an albatross around their necks. I made the plunge into the realm with Leica's Digilux 2 feeling that digital at that time had achieved parity with film. That camera was bulky but not nearly as bulky as DSLRs. Then I saw the Lumix G1. A camera that was small but not too small. But with a thickness (the main part of the body not the grip that's often erroneously included in these measurements) that seemed no thicker than the Leica M6! I was sold. The GF1 and others also had a remarkable form (as well as the Olympus' digital homage to their 35mm Pens and now the OM).
2. The EVF. While there's certainly a love-hate relationship amongst aficionados I am one who loved it IMMEDIATELY. Coming off the experience with the Digilux 2's very 'grainy' EVF (which I thought was pretty cool despite what others felt) the EVF of the G1 was a quantum leap. Did I miss an OVF? A little. But the EVF gave me the equivalent of an HUD that fighter pilots enjoyed with all sorts of information and grids that could be super imposed (or not) over the image providing what I felt was a complete command center while engaged in shooting. Today we're seeing EVF's with resolution and clarity that make the original one I saw in the G1 seem absolutely pre-historic.
3. CDAF. At first the ugly step-sister to PDAF but now fully into it's own. It's blazingly fast. And deadly accurate. And, except in the most extreme low light circumstances is for the most part on a par with the best of PDAF in terms of speed and accuracy. (And for videographers a godsent as the preferred means of AF while filming.)
5. A growing line of lenses and then some. Okay, the original lens I got, the ridiculously slow 14-45mm (28-90mm equiv.) zoom kinda sucked. But then Panasonic unleashed the 20mm f1.7. Then a Leica 45 Macro and a Leica 25mm f1.4. Then a 7-14mm f4 (nearly as good as the Oly FT version). And the 14-140 video monster. Then for big game hunters the 100-300mm f4. And now again copying Olympus FT optics offering two fixed f2.8's zooms: a 12-35mm and 35-100mm. Meanwhile Olympus has upped the ante with some nice jaw-dropping m-offerings of their own: the 12mm f2, 17mm f1.8 (which is a better focal length IMHO than Pany's middling 20mm f1.7), THEIR 45mm f1.8 Macro and their luscious 75mm f1.8 (a wow if ever there was one). And if that wasn't enough, mFT opened the floodgates for EVERYONE ELSES's optics from Nikon to Canon to Zeiss to Leica to Tamron to Samyang to Sigma to... And while these are mostly MF lenses the close-up patch borrowed from Digilux 2 days seems to work rather well as the overwhelming evidence on various threads in this section can attest. (Next step: Peaking.)
6. IQ. Initially not too shabby but steadily improving ever since. Olympus and Panasonic seem to have realized that 16 MP is certainly plenty for a good 300 DPI image in a coffee table book or a magazine spread. And every gallery. And with each iteration the one weakness, high ISO noise, has been their focus (pun intended). The OM-D with (I think) Sony's (mostly likely EXMOR like) sensor has been performing impressively at ISO 3200. And there's no reason to think that the GH3 with it's waterproof, full metal MG++ jacket wouldn't be the same. I don't know about you but with Oly's new faster optics and the new sensors I see a grand slam for most situations besides sports and extreme low light PI work with spousal indiscretions. Video, which is not something I'm into, has similarly seen advances that, for the most part, put mFT first on most short lists.
7. Body design. While I mentioned size initially there is a lot to be said for the thoughtful body designs of these creatures. Panasonic and Olympus seem to have struck a right balance of software driven features as well as good old mechanical layouts. A blend of good intuitive menus as well as a careful offering of essential (and apparently preferred by most) buttons and dials and their placement. Realizing that touch screen success in smartphones would have certain advantages (with the right software) in a camera and incorporating them is nothing short of genius. Finally a word or two about camera noise. From the very beginning I've really liked the low-pitched shluck of the G1 and everything after that has been just as non-attention grabbing. Initial reports of the totally silent shutter of the GH3 seem to be a mixed bag. But I'm certain that any issues will be worked out with a minor improvement in the firmware.
Do I find anything to fault?
Probably the two things that any camera with a larger sensor can offer: (1) shallow depth of field. This is simply a matter of physics. And there's nothing you can do about it although SLR Magic's 0.95 lenses can certainly bring you closer. But I've also experimented with the Brenizer method (as Tessalator has as well) which, if you don't mind the extra work of taking and stitching a number of smaller files together, allows you to achieve results that no larger frame sensor could give you (unless of course it's also being used in a Brenizer context) because the lens equivalents simply don't exist (a 28mm f0.8????). And (2) better low light performance. This clearly has come a long way (although I still tend to shoot at ISO 100-360 out of habit) but with others shooting quasars at ISO 12600 it's hard not to be a little envious. (Of course, if low light shooting is your raison d'être for image making you probably wouldn't be using this system anyway! )
(Note there are others but these two are the most glaring.)
So for my money, I really like how far mFT has come, where it's at and if past performance is any indication of future possibilities...where it's going.
... as the shelf life of a new camera is about as long as a banana.
That being the case, the question inevitably arises: will it blend? Fortunately, there is an answer: Will It Blend? - New Olympus Cameras Get Mixed by Blendtec - YouTubethe shelf life of a new camera is about as long as a banana.
biglouis; Is the Olympus body 100% compatible with all Panasonic lenses? I thought I read somewhere about some features on Panasonic lenses not working as well with Olympus bodies? LouisB[/QUOTE said:There is are some reported issues with the 7-14 Panasonic on Olympus bodies concerning distortion correction, but nothing that can't be handled in PP. I use Panasonic bodies but have tried Olympus lenses without any issues. A friend uses Panasonic lenses on his Olympus without any problems.
You missed Completely Silly ConceptAcronym Definition
CS................
Ah, here we go: Compact System Camera (CSC)