Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

2 3 … 11 12 end

Archive 2011 · Switched entirely to Micro4/3

jasoncallen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Switched entirely to Micro4/3

So right now, I'm doing this whole "simplify my life" thing: Less creative stagnation, more creative projects. Less drama, more fun. Less facebook friends, more real life friendships. And most importantly: Less camera gear, more picture taking!

I sold all of my DSLR equipment as I no longer want to/need to shoot professionally (my 9-5 in video production is paying the bills now). What I found was that my gear was so big & heavy for casual shooting, I'd often leave it at home. The best camera to use for a given situation always ends up being the one that's in arms reach when something cool happens, so $7500 worth of Nikon SLR wasn't doing much for me at home. (Who wants to bring a big SLR and a 17-55/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 VR to a party? Not me, unless I'm getting paid!)

I used to own a Panasonic GF-1 + 20mm f/1.7 lens, and I loved it! It came EVERYWHERE with me. I gave it to a friend who was off to Afghanistan for a year (the cam & my friend are in Kabul right now), so I started looking at what's new on the micro 4/3 scene.

I wasn't a big fan of the GF2 and GF3 - not as many top-level controls as I'd like, and the screen was difficult to see in daylight.

Enter the Olympus EP3... AF performance on par with my old GF1, touch screen AF that's as fast as my Nikon D7000 was (!!), and finally a built in pop-up flash on the olympus side of Micro4/3. I ordered one direct from Olympus and received it on Wednesday.

To complement the Oly EP3, I got a Panasonic 7-14/4, Panasonic 20/1.7, and lens adapters for Nikon and M42 mount to Micro4/3 (I kept my Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR Micro, and I have a bunch of M42 lenses from my olllllld Praktika Hannimex SLR). I plan to get the 45/1.8 when it is released later this month/early September.

So far, here are my impressions of the EP3:
-FAST, reliable AF in all available light situations from high-noon daylight down to dimly lit bar scenes (only the flicker of a few TVs, some 20w incandescent lights, and some light from the band on stage to light the scene). It sometimes stutters at finding focus under dim florescent lighting, but that's to be expected with the florescent lighting 60hz cycle.
-Accurate metering so far - I haven't given this too many challenging situations yet
-compact size & weight!!!! This was the whole reason I switched. Folks at work were asking why I'm shooting with a point 'n' shoot and not my big SLRs!

And my impressions of the 20/1.7 lens:
-It's good to have it back - I missed it! There's a character about this lens that I haven't found on other normal perspective lenses (including Nikon 50/1.4 AFD, Nikon 50/1.4 AFS, Sigma 50/1.4 HSM, Zeiss 50/1.4 ZF, Minolta 50/1.7 Rokkor, etc etc)
-Sharp as a tack
-Tiny as a bottle cap from a Gatorade bottle
-Fast/accurate focus on the EP3, just as it performed on my old GF-1

And my impressions of the 7-14/4.0 lens:
-HOLY S**T it's WIIIIIIIIDE! I was expecting this, but it's so surprising coming from such a tiny lens.
-It's SHARP ENOUGH TO CUT STEEL WITH! I formerly owned the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 AFS and wasn't expecting this to be a very close match in terms of performance, just perspective... I like surprises like this. This lens is worth the big price tag in my opinion!
-It's much smaller than I anticipated - just about as big as a Nikon 18-55mm kit lens - but built tough. It feels like a solid brick of glass and steel with some plastic on the outside.

Overall, I'm happy with the switch so far... I'll be posting shots here once I take a few real-world shots with it (i.e. outside my apartment or office)!

Aug 05, 2011 at 10:32 AM

FlyPenFly
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Switched entirely to Micro4/3

€10 sAys you'll have a dslr again.

Aug 05, 2011 at 10:41 AM

jasoncallen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Switched entirely to Micro4/3

^ If I take that bet, does that mean you'll give me €10 towards an SLR purchase?

j/k

Maybe someday, but for right now, for what I shoot for fun, this camera is all that I need!

Aug 05, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Switched entirely to Micro4/3

I too have made the switch. I held on to my 1DS II for 'serious' work but I haven't taken a shot with it since March. I'll be selling it shortly. I have the Gh2 and a lot of the better Panny lenses and it's a great setup. I won't be going back.

Aug 05, 2011 at 11:27 AM

sirimiri
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Switched entirely to Micro4/3

With respect to the full-frame DSLR and how physically large the bodies and lenses seem to have become, this raises an intriguing question for me:

Is the market set by equipment type, size, price and available features?
Or are the type, size, price and available features what set the market?

Because if there were something like a FF Rebel (I use a Canon-positioned produce because it's what I know) I'd use that in a heartbeat due to "smaller body, bigger sensor".

From having seen the rush by camera makers to put out really mature, smaller systems, it makes me wonder where the DSLR market will go. Clearly there's a size, feature set and price point that will hit the sweet spot in the market, and the few things I've read about new Panasonics and Olympus cameras is that they are really getting to be excellent substitutions for a DSLR in many common cases.

But what's so hard about putting out a $1,400 full-frame Rebel-sized camera? It can't all be chalked up to "lower yield, high sensor price" can it? Surely there has to market calculation in it?

Because looking at the accolades some of the other "moderate sensor size, small body" cameras like you cite are getting, you can see that camera makers are tackling the engineering and marketing challenges with abandon. Is there a similar untapped market in a small form factor, FF sensor? The M9 suggests so.

Apologies if I'm unjustly expanding upon the scope of your original post, it's just that I thought about writing this out in part because some people really have such positive things to say about these new Olys, Panasonics, Sonys, etc. I sold my G11 after ending up frustrated, but could be enticed again if the performance characteristics have advanced this much in a few scant years.

Edited on Nov 14, 2011 at 02:07 PM · View previous versions

Aug 05, 2011 at 12:35 PM

telyt
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Switched entirely to Micro4/3

sirimiri wrote:
... Is there a similar untapped market in a small form factor, FF sensor? The M9 suggests so...

IMHO, yes, particularly if it's responsive and has TTL viewing. I don't need a sh!tload of convenience features. Big sensor, small camera, responsive, TTL viewfinder, and I'd buy it.

Aug 05, 2011 at 12:40 PM

douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Switched entirely to Micro4/3

sirimiri wrote:
With respect to full-frame DSLR and how physically large the bodies and lenses seem to have become, this raises an intriguing question for me:

Is the market set by equipment type, size, price and available features?
Or is the type, size, price and available features what set the market?

Because if there were something like FF Rebel (I use a Canon-positioned produce because it's what I know) I'd use that in a heartbeat due to "smaller body, bigger sensor".

From having seen the rush by camera makers to put out really mature, smaller systems, it makes me wonder where the DSLR market will go....Show more →

I agree that it seems like a moderately featured, small DSLR with a 135 sensor would be great, but the question is price. Sony brought the A850, which still had a 135 sensor, magnesium body and incredible OVF, onto the market under $2k, and I thought that was the deal of the century, but, they've now taken it off the market, because fully featured super AF/movie camera/aps-c cameras, like the 7D, drastically outsold it. I think in the $1000-$2000 range, most users still want features over a larger sensor. I'm the opposite. I'd love a small 135 camera with no AF and only M mode for under $1K.

Anyways, back to the topic at hand, I too got rid of all of my 135 DSLR gear for NEX cameras and rangefinder lenses, and I've been happy with the switch for a year. I don't see myself going back.

Aug 05, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Switched entirely to Micro4/3

I started my small cameras foray with the A33. Didn't like it so sold it. I now plan to get E-P3 (if I could ever find one without any kit lens) + 20/1.7 + 45/1.8. I currently have too much Canon gear that I don't want to part with so I don't think I'd follow your footprints but then again, who knows?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Aug 05, 2011 at 12:53 PM

alexandre
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Switched entirely to Micro4/3

Jman13 wrote:
I too have made the switch. I held on to my 1DS II for 'serious' work but I haven't taken a shot with it since March. I'll be selling it shortly. I have the Gh2 and a lot of the better Panny lenses and it's a great setup. I won't be going back.

I wouldn't be happy without some FF sensor-based camera because of tiny DoF possibilities. I like this and I'd miss it more than you do, I reckon.
But sure thing I'll get a E-PM1 to replace the XSi I sold (didn't use it anyway).

Aug 05, 2011 at 01:50 PM

kwalsh
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Switched entirely to Micro4/3

jasoncallen wrote:
And my impressions of the 7-14/4.0 lens:
-HOLY S**T it's WIIIIIIIIDE! I was expecting this, but it's so surprising coming from such a tiny lens.
-It's SHARP ENOUGH TO CUT STEEL WITH! I formerly owned the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 AFS and wasn't expecting this to be a very close match in terms of performance, just perspective... I like surprises like this. This lens is worth the big price tag in my opinion!
-It's much smaller than I anticipated - just about as big as a Nikon 18-55mm kit lens - but built tough. It feels like a solid brick of glass and steel...Show more →

This lens is what made me switch to m43 entirely. Haven't had my APS-C gear out in almost two years. The 7-14 on a camera with a articulating LCD and wicked fast live-view is just a dream for great compositions.

Yes, there is a trade off in going the m43 route but I've been very surprised how little I've had to trade for what I get in return. Of course part of this is because I don't need fast zooms or action shots so the bigger short comings of the system are irrelevant to me. The GH2 sensor is now very good, caught up to many APS-C sensors (not the legendary K5/D7000 of course) including the Canons.

Since it is hard to find many of these cameras and lenses in person I think a lot of folks don't understand just how much bulk is removed. Here's the smallest APS-C UWA setup I know next to a G1/7-14:


	http://www.kenandchristine.com/photos/757257755_mUaag-L.jpg

Anyway, it isn't going to be all things to all people for sure. That said it is a new niche that has fit my needs just about perfectly.

As a side note, I was just in a shop with a 600D and was trying out its articulating LCD. Wow is the CDAF on that thing so darn slow and awkward as to be borderline useless - not a practical live-view solution at all. The GH2/EP3 CDAF systems are pretty amazing...

Ken

Aug 05, 2011 at 01:58 PM

gardenvalley
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Switched entirely to Micro4/3

My foray into the world of m4/3 was inspired by reading the threads on this very forum, so in an effort to find out more I bought a refurbished Panasonic G1 w/14-45 lens. I was impressed by it`s size and thought that the image quality was good enough for my purposes. I had already "simplified" my life and had reduced my photo gear to a Nikon D90 w/16-85 lens, filters, tripod etc. I was ready to sell the Nikon and commit to m4/3 but some things were bugging me about the Panasonic, namely the awful battery life, no L-bracket option and no multiple exposure. These were the deal-breakers for me as I could not envisage a scenario where, armed with the Nikon, I would have wished I had the Panasonic instead. Good luck to anyone who commits to the change but I think I`ll have a piece of that bet as well.

Aug 05, 2011 at 02:09 PM

kwalsh
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Switched entirely to Micro4/3

sirimiri wrote:
Because if there were something like FF Rebel (I use a Canon-positioned produce because it's what I know) I'd use that in a heartbeat due to "smaller body, bigger sensor".

But what's so hard about putting out a $1,400 full-frame Rebel-sized camera? It can't all be chalked up to "lower yield, high sensor price" can it? Surely there has to market calculation in it?

I've lusted after some sort of reasonably priced but reasonably compact FF system, I know where you are coming from!

Some comments:

It will have to be live-view. No way you are going to get smaller with a FF prism - even the APS-C prisms are two big in my book (and they produce a tiny image compared to a EVF and are nearly impossible to use for MF or checking focus).

I wonder about the lenses. The m43 system works for me because the lenses are so small. Obviously you can make compact FF primes and would work great for some folks, but for someone like me doing landscapes from 14-400mm I'm going to probably lose any benefit in the glass. Until I put together an m43 kit this wasn't obvious to me. Interestingly even the NEX lenses are rather big compared to m43 (1.5x vs 2x crop), but there aren't many data points there yet.

The economics of sensor R&D has technology flow up to the FF sensors, not the other way around. Hence the FF sensors are usually behind the curve and the advantages over the smaller formats not as large as one would expect. So probably the biggest driver to FF is shallow DOF.

I've heard from multiple people in the industry that FF sensors really are that much more expensive. Sometimes ten times as expensive. The issue is that FF requires mutli-mask stitching in production and thus the cost and yield curves are discontinuous with respect to sensors of APS-C size or smaller. Apparently cameras like the A580 and 5DII are very, very heavily dominated by their sensor cost - more so than the APS-C cameras.

Finally, the FF market is vanishingly small - probably hard to partition it very much more.

I'll still create fantasy compact FF systems in my head though! We can always dream.

Ken

Aug 05, 2011 at 02:12 PM

Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Switched entirely to Micro4/3

alexandre wrote:
I wouldn't be happy without some FF sensor-based camera because of tiny DoF possibilities. I like this and I'd miss it more than you do, I reckon.
But sure thing I'll get a E-PM1 to replace the XSi I sold (didn't use it anyway).

I thought I'd miss it too, but honestly, for portrait work, a 50/1.4 or my Hexanon 57/1.2 gives plenty shallow DOF. (I mean, the latter has similar amounts of background blur to a 100 f/2 on full frame) If I really wanted the super shallow in my 50mm equivalent, I'd pick up the CV Nokton 25/0.95, but I'm going to settle with the PanaLeica 25/1.4, which is shallow enough. The only thing missing from m4/3 to my mind is a moderately fast telezoom, like a 50-125 f/2.8 or something like that. I'm sure one will be along sometime in the next few years. I'm more of a wide guy, and with outstanding wides like the 7-14 and the 8mm fisheye, I'm very happy. The PL 45/2.8 macro is also a fantastic lens.

Aug 05, 2011 at 04:04 PM

tomrock
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Switched entirely to Micro4/3

I use big cameras when I have to and little cameras when I want to.

Aug 05, 2011 at 04:29 PM

mawz
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Switched entirely to Micro4/3

telyt wrote:
IMHO, yes, particularly if it's responsive and has TTL viewing. I don't need a sh!tload of convenience features. Big sensor, small camera, responsive, TTL viewfinder, and I'd buy it.

I agree 100%. What's missing in the FF world is a compact, high-performance (but not necessarily feature-ridden) body. They exist in APS-C (the Pentax K-5 is one such body) and in the film world (such as the Contax Aria or Minolta Maxxum 7 as well as most of the better manual focus bodies a la Nikon FM2n). The only thing along those lines in the FF Digital world is the M9.

Aug 05, 2011 at 06:06 PM

mawz
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Switched entirely to Micro4/3

douglasf13 wrote:
I agree that it seems like a moderately featured, small DSLR with a 135 sensor would be great, but the question is price. Sony brought the A850, which still had a 135 sensor, magnesium body and incredible OVF, onto the market under $2k, and I thought that was the deal of the century, but, they've now taken it off the market, because fully featured super AF/movie camera/aps-c cameras, like the 7D, drastically outsold it. I think in the $1000-$2000 range, most users still want features over a larger sensor. I'm the opposite. I'd love a small 135 camera with no...Show more →

From what I understand the issue with the A850 was that the slight changes from the A900 mostly gutted A900 sales. The two models couldn't stand together so they killed the lower-profit one. The only practical difference between the two was 2fps. And remember that the A850, while cheaper, wasn't any smaller. It's a fairly large (if light) camera. And both bodies were missing a couple features (most notably LV) that made them less desirable compared to the competition.

Aug 05, 2011 at 06:08 PM

douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Switched entirely to Micro4/3

mawz wrote:
From what I understand the issue with the A850 was that the slight changes from the A900 mostly gutted A900 sales. The two models couldn't stand together so they killed the lower-profit one. The only practical difference between the two was 2fps. And remember that the A850, while cheaper, wasn't any smaller. It's a fairly large (if light) camera. And both bodies were missing a couple features (most notably LV) that made them less desirable compared to the competition.

Hmm...I've heard the opposite, so who knows? I would imagine that Sony would expect the A850 to gut the A900's sales from the get go, so it doesn't seem to me that they'd pull it for selling well.

I realize that the A850 wasn't any smaller, but I think it is an interesting camera to look at when discussing the idea of a cheaper and smaller 135 camera. I wonder where the size/price tipping point would be?

Aug 05, 2011 at 06:23 PM

mawz
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Switched entirely to Micro4/3

douglasf13 wrote:
Hmm...I've heard the opposite, so who knows? I would imagine that Sony would expect the A850 to gut the A900's sales from the get go, so it doesn't seem to me that they'd pull it for selling well.

I realize that the A850 wasn't any smaller, but I think it is an interesting camera to look at when discussing the idea of a cheaper and smaller 135 camera. I wonder where the size/price tipping point would be?

Sony has bungled product differentiation in their DSLR line at every single step, frankly the A900/A850 was one of the less badly bungled ones.

And the A850 split the A900 sales from everything I've heard.. It picked up some of its own but most of its sales were cannibalized A900 sales from what I've heard. ie A900+A850 sales were only a bit higher than A900 sales prior to the A850 intro, but lower-margin A850 sales were a large fraction of that. So somewhat more sales but a bit less profit for Sony. It didn't help that Sony badly bungled availability & pricing in some markets (The A850 in Canada cost over 20% more than in the US, at a time when you could get a A900 in the US for almost the same price as an A850 in Canada. Also the A850 was available to all Alpha retailers in Canada while the A900 was only in select stores).

Aug 05, 2011 at 06:39 PM

alphaone
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Switched entirely to Micro4/3

douglasf13 wrote:
I agree that it seems like a moderately featured, small DSLR with a 135 sensor would be great, but the question is price. Sony brought the A850, which still had a 135 sensor, magnesium body and incredible OVF, onto the market under $2k, and I thought that was the deal of the century, but, they've now taken it off the market, because fully featured super AF/movie camera/aps-c cameras, like the 7D, drastically outsold it. I think in the $1000-$2000 range, most users still want features over a larger sensor. I'm the opposite. I'd love a small 135 camera with no...Show more →

As a dual system user of FF camera and MILC systems, the image quality of my oldie A900 still surpass any current digital cameras.
The drawback of A900 or any FF/FX system is its weight and size only.

Aug 05, 2011 at 07:14 PM

Zaitz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Switched entirely to Micro4/3

I was thinking of doing the opposite and going entirely 8x10 O_O.

Aug 05, 2011 at 07:36 PM

1 2 3 … 11 12 end
FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 11 12 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.