Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Digital Cameras > Micro 4/3 Cameras Olympus Panasonic

Micro 4/3 Cameras Olympus Panasonic This forum is for all Micro 4/3 cameras of any camera make.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 11-06-2015   #41
Noll
Registered User
 
Noll's Avatar
 
Noll is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 496
I have the EM-5 mkII and the image quality is very good and overall a more than capable-enough camera for my needs. I do have a few issues with it that, if present in one of the top-spec'ed m4/3 camera, are probably universal for the system.

Coming from a dslr, battery life is way too short. Especially since the camera isn't smart enough to know when you're looking through the evf vs when the camera is on but slung around your side. As a result, I constantly have to turn mine on and off, which leads to the next issue:

Startup lag. This isn't terrible, but it is usually a second or two depending on the lens. Never noticed this on my dslr.

Also I feel autofocus, primarily on thin, wispy subjects close to the lens or with macro, can be sub-par compared to phase AF.

So, those are my minor gripes. If I were getting paid to shoot big jobs or had fast action to capture, I'd shoot a dslr. Otherwise, it works.

I used to use legacy glass on my m4/3 bodies, but got tired of doing so due to the 2x crop factor and the lower performance of many lenses. If I weren't already invested in the system, I'd seriously consider something like a sony a6000 and EOS M,
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-06-2015   #42
GaryLH
Registered User
 
GaryLH's Avatar
 
GaryLH is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulfish4570 View Post
gary, the panny 20/1.7 looks like a winner. i'll give it look. love the flatness ...
Btw there are two versions of it.. No difference that I am aware of in terms of lens formulation, the mk2 is suppose to have a faster af from what I hear. I have the first version picked it up when I bought the gf1 way back when..

Good luck w/ it.

Gary
__________________
Panasonic LX100, Sigma Foveon, Fuji X and Panasonic CM1
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-07-2015   #43
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,631
I can't abide the 4:3 format. It reminds me of watching an old-fashined TV set.
__________________
“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” George Orwell

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-07-2015   #44
Texsport
Registered User
 
Texsport's Avatar
 
Texsport is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
I just can't get into it. The Olympus E-M1 is a nice camera, and there are some really nice lenses, but I don't like the 4:3 aspect ratio. To get away from that, you need to use a cropped jpeg file. That's a no go for me too. I stick to APSC and FF 2:3 formats.
There is an option for several different format rations on the Olympus OMD I believe!

Texsport
__________________
"The top selling beer in America is Bud Light, followed by Budweiser, Miller Light and Natural Light. We are officially feminized". Joe Soucheray - Minneapolis, Minnesota.

This discussion is a perfect illustration of what I constantly tell my wife - you can never have enough cameras, lenses, guns, or golf clubs - oh, and diamonds, according to her! - Texsport

"That girl can make a dog break his chain!" - Justified - 2015.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-07-2015   #45
mfogiel
Registered User
 
mfogiel's Avatar
 
mfogiel is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Monaco
Posts: 4,662
For me it is irrelevant.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-07-2015   #46
mabelsound
Registered User
 
mabelsound's Avatar
 
mabelsound is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Age: 47
Posts: 6,188
I think they're great! Although, now that full frame cameras are nearly as small, they've lost some of their appeal, for me. I really like Oly's design aesthetic and like what Panasonic and Leica have done together, as well. I think m4/3 has really helped move camera tech forward over the past decade.

I'm not sure why the aspect ratio bothers people; I think it's all a matter of what you're used to, and it's easy to crop.
__________________
flickr insta twitter
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-07-2015   #47
JP Owens
Registered User
 
JP Owens is offline
Join Date: Dec 2014
Age: 67
Posts: 322
I shoot a Pany GH3 a lot. I wish it could be my only camera. But, the achilles heel of the m4/3 format, in my experience, is low light and dynamic range. If I nail exposure exactly, ISO 1600 is fine. Shooting with a full-frame sensor camera, though, ISO 1600 is child's play. I shoot a 5D MkIII at 6400 without a worry. And I haven't seen much progress in m4/3 ISO performance yet. The GH4 and even the newer G7 aren't significantly improved over the GH3.

I'm not sure stuffing full-frame sensors in tiny bodies is the solution, either. Despite innovations like 5-axis IS, a camera needs some mass to handle well.
__________________
_______

"Nothing exists beyond the edges of the frame."
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-07-2015   #48
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
 
photomoof's Avatar
 
photomoof is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by mabelsound View Post
I think they're great! Although, now that full frame cameras are nearly as small, they've lost some of their appeal, for me. I really like Oly's design aesthetic and like what Panasonic and Leica have done together, as well. I think m4/3 has really helped move camera tech forward over the past decade.

I'm not sure why the aspect ratio bothers people; I think it's all a matter of what you're used to, and it's easy to crop.
I still have my Lumix GF1, but I have to admit it never really worked for me. Sold all the lenses, but kept the kit lens.

As for the odd size, I would crop them if I showed them, since I long ago moved back to FF. It's all what one is used to, I guess, and FF is now almost as cheap.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-07-2015   #49
Rick Waldroup
Registered User
 
Rick Waldroup's Avatar
 
Rick Waldroup is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 910
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Owens View Post
I shoot a Pany GH3 a lot. I wish it could be my only camera. But, the achilles heel of the m4/3 format, in my experience, is low light and dynamic range. If I nail exposure exactly, ISO 1600 is fine. Shooting with a full-frame sensor camera, though, ISO 1600 is child's play. I shoot a 5D MkIII at 6400 without a worry. And I haven't seen much progress in m4/3 ISO performance yet. The GH4 and even the newer G7 aren't significantly improved over the GH3.

I'm not sure stuffing full-frame sensors in tiny bodies is the solution, either. Despite innovations like 5-axis IS, a camera needs some mass to handle well.
Another problem I have with them is the battery power. I have to carry numerous batteries with me all the time. Other than that, I really enjoy shooting with the cameras and most of the lenses are excellent.
__________________
Rick Waldroup Photography
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-07-2015   #50
jammcat
Lick My Lens Cap
 
jammcat's Avatar
 
jammcat is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario Canada
Posts: 182
I have been working with M43 for a few years now, and sold my 5DII with all of my lenses to fill out my Olympus kit, with money left over. I can fit a very extensive gig kit in a Domke F2, which would have been impossible with the Canon.

Traded up from the original E-M5 to the E-M5II, and find it a very welcome improvement.

The lenses are tiny and fantastic, and the autofocus is great.
The cameras handle well (after you've set them up in the menus).
I've had no issues with battery life or performance, and shoot M43 in a variety of different scenarios. The silent shutter mode is fantastic for photographing live music and theatre.

The only Canon lens that I really miss is the 24mm f1.4II, of which there is no direct equivalent in the M43 lineup. I suppose that the 12mm is close enough, but I have not yet used it. Favourite primes are the Zuiko 17mm f1.8, Zuiko 45mm f1.8, and for zooms, the 14-40mm f2.8 and the 40-150mm f2.8.

I've recently acquired a Sony A7II, and find it sluggish (and very loud) in comparison. It does play very nicely with my legacy glass, though, with which the Olympus can't compete (due to 2x crop). I definitely find the E-M5II's EFV better than the A7II's, and the battery life is much better.
__________________
-Leth

Toronto-based documentary/music photographer.

http://lickmylenscap.com
https://www.instagram.com/lickmylenscap/
https://lickmylenscap.tumblr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-07-2015   #51
Bob Michaels
nobody special
 
Bob Michaels's Avatar
 
Bob Michaels is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Apopka FL (USA)
Age: 73
Posts: 3,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by mabelsound View Post
.....

I'm not sure why the aspect ratio bothers people; I think it's all a matter of what you're used to, and it's easy to crop.
I agree and wonder about others' phobias about cropping to change the aspect ratio. Having shot 6x6 in MF, 6x7 in MF, 4x5 in LF, 3x2 in 35mm and others in digital, I find a crop to whatever aspect ratio works best in the vast majority of images. I would guess that probably 90% of my 35mm images over the years end up being cropped to 8x10/4x5 aspect ratio. But I never hesitated to crop a 6x6 neg to a 3x2 aspect ratio or a 35mm neg to a square if that was what worked best.

Maybe it goes back to the wet darkroom days where the aspect ratio of the negative and that of the printing paper seemed to always be different so adjusting the aspect ratio was the norm.

I shooting a lot with a Fuji XP-1 and XT-1 now and cannot tell you the native aspect ratio. I just know that I commonly crop to 8x10/4x5.

I had a m4/3 system and it did everything I needed it to do. The only reason I quit using it was that it got stolen and I came across a killer deal on a X100 to replace it.

But then I have never understood the logic that a digital camera sensor must match the size and aspect ratio of a piece of 35mm film. It always seemed like apples and oranges to me.
__________________
http://www.bobmichaels.org
internet forums appear to have an abundance of anonymous midgets prancing on stilts
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-07-2015   #52
GaryLH
Registered User
 
GaryLH's Avatar
 
GaryLH is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,185
+1

Same here.. Shot with so many different camera types and aspect ratios..really does matter that much to me..

Gary
__________________
Panasonic LX100, Sigma Foveon, Fuji X and Panasonic CM1
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-07-2015   #53
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 35
Posts: 3,995
olympus and panasonic don't have the same status as fuji and sony because the industrial design of their products is disappointing and haphazard. panny's f2.8 zooms are purple, oly's retro bodies are half-baked, the narrow lenses with wide mounts look weird, etc. it's unfortunate because many of the lenses (though not as well thought out as fuji) are really good, and autofocus on 4/3 is generally going to be faster than on larger formats.

oly is finally making a pen with the evf in the corner, so that's something to look forward to. i'd love to see the e-1 design updated, too.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-07-2015   #54
emraphoto
Registered User
 
emraphoto's Avatar
 
emraphoto is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,478
the gx7 is really an amazing camera... focuses in the dark. the hexar af of today!

i am thrilled with the development of the format as it lightens my load like never before.
__________________
www.johndensky.ca
@eastofadelaide
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-07-2015   #55
HuubL
hunter-gatherer
 
HuubL's Avatar
 
HuubL is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Age: 65
Posts: 2,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
I really liked the output from my OMD when I had it but the camera felt like a toy ... too small for me.
I love my OMD EM5.

With the grip on it's perfect for my hands and if I want even more grip, I also attach the extra battery module.
__________________
Grain, not Noise!
My cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-08-2015   #56
doolittle
Registered User
 
doolittle's Avatar
 
doolittle is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ireland
Age: 45
Posts: 590
Recent convert to m43. Picked up a OMD EM10mk2 and Olympus 45mm 1.8 lens. Also got an inexpensive Fotodiox M mount to m43 adapter.

So far very impressed with the ergonomics and haptics. The dials are nice and chunky and give good click feedback. Like to be able to change aperture with one dial and use the other for exposure compensation.

The image stabilisation is phenomenal. I have shaky hands and it really makes a world of difference. I got my 79 year old father to take a few pictures with it and they came out blur free - remarkable for low indoor lighting, more so as he has a noticeable parkinson's tremor .

I bought it as my go to travel and travelling light digital camera. I have high hopes it will excel in its brief. I think m43 hits the sweet spot in the compromises between image sensor/size of lenses/weight of system.
__________________
--

fixerofshadows.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-08-2015   #57
Range-rover
Registered User
 
Range-rover is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,732
I have a micro 4/3rds for awhile and do like using them the size the sharp
lenses, and now with the 20 megapixels camera they could only get better.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-08-2015   #58
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 371
Just spent five minutes pondering over all the things I could write about this camera. The great big viewfinder, how easy it is to focus, the smooth operation, amazing build quality.

Then realised nobody else was posting about their Leica M4 and M3. I'll get my coat.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-08-2015   #59
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
 
photomoof's Avatar
 
photomoof is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
I can't abide the 4:3 format. It reminds me of watching an old-fashined TV set.
Yeah it is really ugly, and I admit the 35mm format is just an accident, but a very successful one esthetically.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-08-2015   #60
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
 
nukecoke's Avatar
 
nukecoke is offline
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Sweden/China
Posts: 657
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
olympus and panasonic don't have the same status as fuji and sony because the industrial design of their products is disappointing and haphazard. panny's f2.8 zooms are purple, oly's retro bodies are half-baked, the narrow lenses with wide mounts look weird, etc. it's unfortunate because many of the lenses (though not as well thought out as fuji) are really good, and autofocus on 4/3 is generally going to be faster than on larger formats.

oly is finally making a pen with the evf in the corner, so that's something to look forward to. i'd love to see the e-1 design updated, too.
Talking about industrial design, I think Sony A7 (the one with “plastic” lens mount) is one of the ugliest cameras in years. While OMDs and PENs are beautiful.
__________________
tumblr

flickr

About Film Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-08-2015   #61
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Waldroup View Post
I switched from Nikon DSLR's (after having been a Nikon shooter for decades), and went to the m4/3 system back in 2009. I have never looked back. For what I shoot, the system is almost perfect. I currently shoot a Panasonic GX-7 and a G5 with a variety of lenses, including the Pana/Leica 25 1.4, which is a superb lens.
Rick I looked at your website and you have some very fine work. Excellent!
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-08-2015   #62
narsuitus
Registered User
 
narsuitus's Avatar
 
narsuitus is offline
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by back alley View Post
...what do you really think of the m4/3 systems?
Pros:

Interchangeable Lenses

Lenses - high image quality

Size & Weight - small size and light weight are ideal for travel

Bodies - accept legacy lenses

Crop Factor - like the 2x factor when shooting legacy telephoto lenses

Operational Noise - quieter than my SLR

Aspect Ratio - the 4:3 aspect ratio is my personal favorite

Versatility - more versatile than my fixed lens mirrorless cameras

Price - reasonable and competitive



Cons:

Dependability - my two bodies broke too often

Lenses - do not like focus-by-wire lenses

Auto Focus - too slow and too inaccurate for my taste

Manual Focus - too difficult for my taste

Crop Factor - hate the 2x factor when shooting legacy wide angle lenses

Operational Noise - my micro 4/3 cameras are my loudest mirrorless cameras

Versatility - not as versatile as my SLR cameras; for example, I could really use a battery pack accessory

View Finder - would prefer a built-in view finder instead of an add-on view finder



Olympus E-p1 by Narsuitus, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-08-2015   #63
Kent
Finally at home...
 
Kent's Avatar
 
Kent is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 46
Posts: 1,619
There are some excellent µ4/3 cams out there. And a very good photographer will produce excellent results with them.
But for me, even if I really like e.g. the Olympus OM-D10, I always have a gut feeling that they are not as versatile as an APS- or fullframe cam. Still, chances are good that this is a silly prejudice.
__________________
Cheers, Kent
_______
Main Cams: Leica, Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Olympus, Pentax, Panasonic, Canon
Main Lenses: Leica, Nikkor, Voigtländer, Fuji, Sigma, Pentax, Tamron, Rokkor etc.
Click me...
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-08-2015   #64
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texsport View Post
There is an option for several different format rations on the Olympus OMD I believe!

Texsport
Yes, and this is unacceptable because it requires a non-trivial reduction in pixel dimensions.

There is no compelling reason to use a camera optimized for a format I will never use.
__________________
“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” George Orwell

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-08-2015   #65
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
 
photomoof's Avatar
 
photomoof is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
Yes, and this is unacceptable because it requires a non-trivioal reduction in pixel dimensions.

There is no compelling reason to use a camera optimized for a format I will never use.
That was my final thought. I used 4/3 for a studio project, because the camera was small, but ended up reshooting on FF, rather than cropping, and just sold all the lenses etc.

I am still stuck with the lumix body, no one wanted it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-09-2015   #66
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 44
Posts: 18,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texsport View Post
There is an option for several different format rations on the Olympus OMD I believe!

Texsport
I always knew that (for jpeg)...but I didn't know that it translated to RAW. That's new.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-09-2015   #67
fireblade
Vincenzo.
 
fireblade's Avatar
 
fireblade is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,168
Excellent system, as are all systems.
It's all about what tickles your fancy.
__________________
Vincenzo

"No place is boring, if you've had a good night's sleep and have a pocket full of unexposed film."
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-09-2015   #68
Rick Waldroup
Registered User
 
Rick Waldroup's Avatar
 
Rick Waldroup is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 910
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray View Post
Rick I looked at your website and you have some very fine work. Excellent!
Well, thank you very much for the very kind words about my work. Most of the older work was done on film with rangefinder cameras and Nikon SLR's and DSLR's. The majority of the photos from 2008 to the present were shot with m4/3 gear. As I mentioned earlier, I find the system to be a perfect fit for the type of street and documentary stuff I shoot.

Also, I like the 4:3 ratio. When I crop, I usually find myself cropping that way or to a square format. Not sure why, but it just looks good to my eye, I guess.
__________________
Rick Waldroup Photography
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-09-2015   #69
mh2000
Registered User
 
mh2000's Avatar
 
mh2000 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,145
I love my E-P1! Love my Oly 25/1.8 and Oly 45/1.8. Never lets me down and I show 11x14" and 12x16" in galleries and they look perfectly fantastic! Yes, I was a little hostile toward the 4:3 aspect ratio at first, but then got myself to recognize that it was nearly the same as many traditional larger formats, even if I had been brought up on 35mm... now I kind of prefer it to 3:2. If not 4:3, I think I'd go for 16:9... strange that you can change after so many years!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2016   #70
tyrone.s
Registered User
 
tyrone.s's Avatar
 
tyrone.s is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Down Under
Posts: 237
I really love m4/3. I'm using an Olympus E-P3 and I'm really loving the haptics of the camera, especially the quality of buttons/clicks and the ease of use of the touch screen interface to focus with. For me using m4/3 was a bit of a fluke as I had bought the E-P3 for my wife as a birthday present. But she gave me a present - she left me! The camera remained in the box for a good couple of years and then I used it a bit and then I bought a VF2 and used my legacy glass - especially my LTM stuff. However I now shoot mostly with AF lenses. First I bought a used Olympus 17/2.8 for a slim pocketable unit (and it was cheap, secondhand, but performance is poor). Then I went with the Sigma 30/2.8 and I loved that lens so much I grabbed a Sigma 60/2.8. I'll probably get the Sigma 19mm if the lawyers leave me $200 to spare. It might be a while, lol.

Battery life is also excellent.

Not sure about the issues other people find with the 4:3 ratio though? Admittedly a lot of what I shoot is for screen use only but when I print, well yeah, the little 4x6 sized prints loose out compared to 3:2, so I tend to crop in a bit with them, but when I print, I usually want a bigger print to frame. Typically with bigger prints I go for 5x7 or 8x10 and in those sizes 4:3 fits the paper better than 3:2 does. So aspect ratio is a non-event for me. As to the inherent perspective of 4:3 - well if it crops too much I take a step back. But in day-to-day use I don't find it an issue.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-05-2016   #71
traveler_101
American abroad
 
traveler_101 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 911
I have been with m43 since 2010 and it remains my only digital camera format. I started with an E-P1 and now have an E-P5 with four prime lenses.

I stuck it out with Olympus despite the Fuji temptation because costs are lower, but also because m43 is a better complement to my b&w film shooting than Fuji, which has the audacity to try to imitate film aesthetics.

I have been a little disgruntled by the rise of the more DSLR-like Olympus OM series and especially the new largish "pro" zoom lenses, but am looking forward to the new Pen camera and fast primes Olympus will be releasing soon.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-05-2016   #72
traveler_101
American abroad
 
traveler_101 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Michaels View Post

. . . I had a m4/3 system and it did everything I needed it to do. The only reason I quit using it was that it got stolen and I came across a killer deal on a X100 to replace it.

But then I have never understood the logic that a digital camera sensor must match the size and aspect ratio of a piece of 35mm film. It always seemed like apples and oranges to me.
Right on, Bob. This is what I was also saying about imitating film "looks." Let digital be digital. It has its own aesthetic.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-05-2016   #73
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,806
I see plenty of nice images from M43, but for me the crop factor is a killer with legacy. I could not even stand APS-C.

I think it depends on the subject and how you want to shoot it. In some situations you can't tell the difference m43 vs FF, but in others it's obvious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Clark View Post
It's the creativity of the person whose vision is made utilizing the tools, not the tools.
Tell that to the Incas.

A whole civilization conquered by a handful of Spanish guys with better tools.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-05-2016   #74
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
 
JoeV's Avatar
 
JoeV is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Posts: 1,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Owens View Post
I shoot a Pany GH3 a lot. I wish it could be my only camera. But, the achilles heel of the m4/3 format, in my experience, is low light and dynamic range. If I nail exposure exactly, ISO 1600 is fine. Shooting with a full-frame sensor camera, though, ISO 1600 is child's play. I shoot a 5D MkIII at 6400 without a worry. And I haven't seen much progress in m4/3 ISO performance yet. The GH4 and even the newer G7 aren't significantly improved over the GH3.

I'm not sure stuffing full-frame sensors in tiny bodies is the solution, either. Despite innovations like 5-axis IS, a camera needs some mass to handle well.
This has always puzzled me. And made me think there's more going on than mere differences in sensor size. After all, individual sensor sites each capture a small portion of the overall image. If each pixel performed equivalently the same between FF and m4/3, there should be no difference between them in terms of dynamic range and ISO noise. The issue should be sensor size-agnostic.

Let's say I take some FF image and crop it down to about 1/4 of its size, to simulate what the same lens would have seen on a m4/3 body. Now, are you trying to tell me that this 1/4 of a FF image SUDDENLY has less dynamic range and poorer low-light performance? I call "BS".

So, why do m4/3 sensors seem to offer less dynamic range and ISO performance than FF sensors? I contend it has little to do with the sensor size and mostly to do with the technology state of the sensor - how each pixel performs and the state-of-the-art in sensor technology employed.

So, why does it seem that mostly FF sensors are using the more sophisticated sensor technologies - making it SEEM as if it had something to do intrinsically with sensor size itself? I think it's because of the economics of the camera market. A FF sensor can be sold to the consumer, as part of the overall cost of the camera, for much more than 4x its die-cost, as compared to a m4/3 sensor. So the newer design and manufacturing processes can be employed with making FF chips, and more easily paid for with FF cameras. So there's market acceptance for a bigger mark-up with FF cameras. It's what people expect. You can't easily make money selling Chevy sedans with Porsche engines, the market won't bear with the cost. So you put a cheaper engine, less sophisticated, in a cheaper car.

~Joe
__________________
"If your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light"

Inventor of the Light Pipe Array
My Blog
My latest book
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-05-2016   #75
paulfish4570
Registered User
 
paulfish4570's Avatar
 
paulfish4570 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Lapine, in deep south Alabama
Age: 66
Posts: 9,953
i've had my e-m5 since july. i love it. got the Zuiko 25/1.8 in december. fantastic lens. i keep mine set on 3:2 format; it is what i am used to.
__________________
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind ...
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-05-2016   #76
Larry H-L
Registered User
 
Larry H-L is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 372
JoeV,

One possible answer could be the size of the pixel well itself. Remember that most micro 4/3 sensors are 16 megapixels or so. If you quadruple that, to full-frame size, that would be the equivalent pixel density of packing 64 megapixels into a full frame sensor.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-05-2016   #77
Addy101
Registered User
 
Addy101 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
A whole civilization conquered by a handful of Spanish guys with better tools.
You mean the diseases they brought to America and that killed off most locals?
__________________
Das Bild ist ein Modell der Wirklichkeit - Wittgenstein
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-05-2016   #78
flyalf
Registered User
 
flyalf is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Norway, Tromsø
Posts: 233
I have used GH-2. I was a very decent camera. I have tried the Olys, but my brain simply cannot cope with 20 or so wheels and switches in combination with 300 pages menus making each changing shooting situation an eternity before being able to capture something. Life is simply to short to fondle with camera's. My bad.

The MF implementations for m43 doesn't suit me, Again, that's me.

I miss a 17/0,7 in the lens offerings.
__________________
Regards, Alf Sollund, Tromsø, Norway
------------------------------------
http://alfsollund.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-05-2016   #79
btgc
Registered User
 
btgc's Avatar
 
btgc is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,756
I think it were interesting concept five to seven years ago but since I didn't buy into it lost appeal in my view.

Now with excellent VF in small Pentax DSLR and focus peaking I get what I have wanted from digital non-phone camera.

Also I believe some people are sentimental and make choices based on their previous decisions. People who have used MZ-S often have chosen IstDS or someone who has used half-frame Pen can switch to digital Pen, OM to OM-D etc etc.
__________________
MyFlickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-05-2016   #80
intheviewfinder
Rich Beaubien
 
intheviewfinder's Avatar
 
intheviewfinder is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Bolton MA USA
Posts: 204
I kind of like them. I have a friend with a OMD. I tried it a bit but because I tend to like wide angles I just find the sensor a wee bit too small. I can get some nice wide angle lenses with the APS-c sensor. So I've been finding the Fuji X cameras and lenses to be a nice compromise of size and weight.
__________________
-- Rich
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 21:07.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.