Can't hold Silkypix against m4/3, Pentax Photo Lab is reskinned Silkypix as well. Awful converter, but only Canon provides a really decent 1st party converter for free (Nikon's CaptureNX2 is pretty damned good, but not free).
HAHAHAHA! And while reading this thread a photo-ad popped up showing the Canon 24-70L and I was suddenly even more happy than ever to be shooting m43!!!
I used to shoot an assortment of Canon then Nikon pro DSLRs. I initially ditched canon when i started shooting Nikon film bodies (FE2, F3), then worked my way into the D700 setup.
After nearly a year with that, i ditched the D700's in favor of my FE2's and Canon rangefinder stuff. Shot all film and Canon S90 for about a year and a half.
Now i have a M4/3 setup on the way.. i'm sure some of you remember my violent disdain towards this format as little as a year ago, but i just care more about portability and convenience now. I understand.
My priorities have changed greatly, and i'm looking forward to giving M4/3 a try.
Thanks, i'm sure i will.
I have a GF1, Pentax 25/1.4 CCTV lens, and a few adapters on the way. Looking for/trying to decide between 14/2.5 or 20/1.7...
One thing about DOF....I really noticed when I bought my FF D700, that shots I could take of two people at f2.8 were not possible anymore, because if they're eyes were out of plane, I needed to stop down to get them in focus....
Sometimes shallow DOF is nice, but I actually like that I can get more in focus with the same aperture as m4/3...or even an APS-C for that matter.
I really wish I took this with my D7000 or A850 instead of the EPL2.
Even at their base ISOs there is too much noise in the sky on a bright day. The picture isn't quite as detailed and sharp as what I'm seeing on my Zeiss primes... This was a once in a life time trip simply because I have a whole list of other places I am going to instead of back to the Honduras.
I've printed these metallic on 16x20 and while they look fine to most people, it pains me a bit to see that noise.
And yes, since I spent some days just wandering around taking pictures, it would have been trivial to have had my DSLR kits with me.
I had that same issue with my D300 though too. Noisy blue skies. I agree with you, but I think as an early adopter, it's just part of the equation. Another generation or so, and the noise (will be a non-issue) hopefully.
Noisy skies compared to FF is true. Because of sensor size and full well depth differences there is about 2 stops of noise difference at base ISO between the A850 and m43.
I use LR3 and it handles NR in the sky quite well without impacting detail in other parts of the scene. With a small luminance NR setting and a bit of masking on the capture sharpening settings I can get clean sky without impacting the other scene areas. That said, it'd be nice to have the photon count of the FF cameras.
To that end, since I almost always shoot tripod mounted, I was going to experiment doing a 4 shot burst and then average the RAW files to create an effectively two stop lower ISO. Obviously that only will work for certain shooting situations!
I think MFT does offer pretty good quality over a compact camera.
However, APS-C sensor technology has just completely outpaced MFT and Panasonic just can't keep up with the speed of Sony has so far. They were perhaps competitive around the GH-1 release days but they are not anywhere competitive anymore and its sad that the EP-1, EP-2, and EP-3 as well as the GF-1, GF-2, and GF-3 all have basically the same lack of dynamic range and noisy images even in ideal shooting conditions. They've stood still.
Don't even get me started on Panasonic supply problems...
While I liked the ergos of the GF-1 and the G-1 as well as the feel and aesthetics of my E-P2, it doesn't seem like they're taking it anywhere.
At least when I shoot with my X100 and D7000 and A850 now, I don't have to worry about the camera not measuring up.
FlyPenFly - I don't think you've had any experience with the GH1, GH2 or G3, though, have you? Their sensor performance is significantly better than the E-P1/P2 and GF/G1,G2 series.
I mean, I know that the new Sony/Nikon sensor are fantastic, but really, especially since I don't shoot in super dark places often, how much better do I really need?
This was today at ISO 5000 on my GH2, and it was pushed a third of a stop, so is effectively ISO 6400. Works for me. One of the very few times I find myself needing to go beyond ISO 1250.
Interesting thread. I have been in the process of converting from Nikon to m4/3 for a while, and I'm very impressed with the GH1. The GH2 and G3 certainly deliver image quality superior to my D300. When it comes to noise, it's important to remember also that with m4/3, we have access to some really fast, yet relatively compact, long lenses. An 85mm f/1.4 has a range (and DOF) roughly equal to a 180mm f/2.8 on FF. Any 2 stop noise advantage is gone with that comparison already.
There will probably never be an 85mm f/1.2 eqv. for m4/3, but when I see portraits taken wide open with that lens, I very rarely feel that "WOW, it's really great to see a portrait where I can only figure out that fraction of the nearest eye that is in focus". I shoot most portraits nowadays with the GH1 and an OM Zuiko 50mm f/2.0 Macro, and wide open, it delivers exactly the image quality I'm looking for; very sharp, the right DOF and beautiful bokeh. I couldn't be happier
rscheffler wrote:
. . . . And why would manufacturers undercut their higher end, higher margin FF cameras by giving many who will eventually buy one of those a cheaper alternative? For those who really want FF, they'll find a way to afford it, .
Well, I did opt for a small FF body, and there is currently one choice. And it is not an inexpensive choice either (M9). I hope the Nex 7 does incredibly well and inspires a similar FF model from someone. Unfortunately Pentax and Nikon are going the wrong way (Q and Nikon rumors).
As for 'Good Enough' - the M43's definitely produce quality images. If shooting for web images and small prints, D3's and 5dII's are overkill (for most images).
A small FF body does not imply lower margins. The small FF market is being ignored, and the hole is big enough to stack 7000 $1 bills . . .
I've almost switched to M43 after years as a Canon (and later Canon/Olympus SLR) shooter. I still use my Canon SLRs for wildlife (the 7D's AF tracking is lightyears beyond M43) and portraits (5D+24-70+580EX = portrait factory). I do everything else with my M43 cameras, and I suspect soon I'll be doing wildlife with M43, too.
I've definitely given up some capability going to M43. Noise performance is worse, but still manageable. AF WAS worse until the EP3 came along. Buffer and frame rate is worse, but I rarely notice.
The DOF thing is kind of like the gnashing of teeth you sometimes heard about poor corner performance on FF lenses a few years back. Yes, the phenomena is there, but it doesn't really hurt you if you know what you're doing. I rarely want super short DOF unless I'm shooting portraits, so if I do I grab a telephoto or my OM 50/1.8, or I just use my 5D2 instead. So the larger DOF thing isn't a problem for me at all.
The advantages are much more significant to me. My kit is more than 5lbs lighter than my Canon DSLR kit. I don't have to spend thousands of dollars to get a decent AF lens (for example, the Canon 18-55 -> 28-135 -> 24-70 quality/price progression). It's easy to bring with me because it's small. It's easy to shoot in a crowd because people don't notice you the way they do with a big DSLR. And being a CDAF/EVF/LCD system I get all kinds of nifty assistance features like a magnified viewfinder for manual focus, exposure simulation in the viewfinder, a live view histogram or under/overexposure blinkie overlay, and the ability to brighten up the viewfinder beyond ambient when shooting in low light.
Bottom line for me, I enjoy shooting with my M43 cameras more and I MUCH prefer to carry them than my heavy SLR kit. They perform very nicely and do it in a fraction the size and cost of my SLRs. Now all I need is a fast portrait zoom and a body with AF tracking to match my 7D, and I'll sell the last of my Canon equipment.
Panasonic is very well known for being unable to deliver necessary product, especially accessories, to market for their higher-end cameras. The most recent example being the inability to get spare batteries for the GH2 until it had been on the market for about 6 months. And just about every interesting lens they've released has been unobtanium for the first 6 months or so after release.
mawz wrote:
Panasonic is very well known for being unable to deliver necessary product, especially accessories, to market for their higher-end cameras. The most recent example being the inability to get spare batteries for the GH2 until it had been on the market for about 6 months. And just about every interesting lens they've released has been unobtanium for the first 6 months or so after release.
I remember there were some supply problems when m4/3 was first launched, but now my local dealer has every current Panasonic product in stock, plus batteries and other parts. Lots of it.
There's been a lot of talk about DoF differences. IMO, for all practical everyday applications m43's increased DoF is quite a significant advantage especially in low light and macro! Moreover, live view is so much more approriate for macro.
Also, most m43 have much weaker AA filters resulting in sharper images right out of camera.
We live in the age of instant gratification when we need the results right here and right now. Olympus provides outstanding jpeg results right away eliminating the need to any PP whatsoever for the vast majority of users. I used to have Canon T2i and I can tell you that jpegs from my E-PL2 look much better: they are sharper and have much punchier, deeper color. When I first posted pics on facebook from my then newly acquired E-PL2, the improvement in color was immidiately noticed by my friends asking me what camera I used. All this talk about noise: noise is not even seen (below ISO 3200) unless you view your images at 100% while good color will be noticed immidiately even at web size photos.
Of course, if you are a professional photographer I think size shouldn't be the highest priority so bigger, higher IQ cameras will probably be more appropriate anyway. There are so many folks on this forum using gigantic and heavy medium format and FF cams for "hobby" that it's not even funny. I don't know if there is a treamtent for their condition.
