I must say that I'm curious what makes somebody choose m4/3 over the newer generation of ASP-C compacts such as the NEX. Is it the availability of good native AF lenses?
When considering the same generation of sensors ultimately from an image quality point of view larger is always better. With a larger format you get better wide angle lenses, better dynamic range, better high ISO performance, more control over DoF and you get overall better performance (resolution & micro contrast) from lenses as far less strain is put on them.
I was pretty sure that since the introduction of the compact ASP-C lenses, m4/3 would die. After all, ASP-C is to m4/3 what m4/3 is to a 2/3" P&S. So why isn't m4/3 dead or even dying?
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
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.
The last set of supply problems was this spring (with the GH2 batteries), Panasonic does seem to have managed to get the G3 and GF3 into stores in reasonable amounts, but I suspect there will be issues again with the 25/1.4
denoir wrote:
I must say that I'm curious what makes somebody choose m4/3 over the newer generation of ASP-C compacts such as the NEX. Is it the availability of good native AF lenses?
When considering the same generation of sensors ultimately from an image quality point of view larger is always better. With a larger format you get better wide angle lenses, better dynamic range, better high ISO performance, more control over DoF and you get overall better performance (resolution & micro contrast) from lenses as far less strain is put on them.
I was pretty sure that since the introduction of the compact ASP-C lenses, m4/3 would die. After all, ASP-C is to m4/3 what m4/3 is to a 2/3" P&S. So why isn't m4/3 dead or even dying?...Show more →
Native lenses, body options (All NEX's are super-compacts), EVF's, video (GH2 is the most capable body in terms of video). The NEX system is good but limited, there's only 3 lenses and only 1 body type (in 3 variations) and that is very consumer-oriented in terms of controls. The m43 bodies offer 3 distinct body types (SLR-alike with EVF, high-end compact with lots of controls, small compact with limited direct control), all of which NEX doesn't offer. And the much wider selection of native lenses matters. If you're looking for a full system which is compact and doesn't require using more than 1-2 adapted lenses the m43 system is greatly superior to NEX (and also if you want fully-coupled adaptation of SLR lenses, a m43 body with 4/3rds lenses offers more performance than a NEX with A mount, especially in terms of AF speed which is poor for adapted lenses on m43 and utterly useless on NEX)
Note I'm not addressing the NX system here. While it's got some nice design aspects and a good lens lineup, it's badly crippled by a sensor that was obsolete in 2007 and processing that isn't up to delivering what the sensor is capable of (IQ lags the Pentax bodies which also used that sensor).
In terms of IQ, m43 is far closer to APS-C than it is to 2/3". In fact the current m43 bodies significantly outperform one of the current APS-C mirrorless systems (NX) and aren't far behind the other. Only the 16MP sony sensor really has a performance advantage over the GH2 or G3 sensors (the 12MP m43 sensors are somewhat lower performing).
If I had to pick a single system, it would be m43 over NEX or NX any day. As a second system or as primarily a platform for adapting RF lenses the NEX would win (of course I'm an A mount shooter so the NEX's fully-coupled A mount adapter tilts the math in its favour rather strongly. the fact that the NEXen use the same battery as my A33 makes that argument stronger).
denoir wrote:
I must say that I'm curious what makes somebody choose m4/3 over the newer generation of ASP-C compacts such as the NEX. Is it the availability of good native AF lenses?
For me it is both this and the size of the whole package. Going for E-P3 + 20/1.7 + 45/1.8 is much smaller, and lighter than NEX 7 + 24/1.8 + 50/1.8 OSS. Yes, I will not have an EVF but I do get stabilization with all the lenses that interest me (the 12/2 may follow later). Also, it's cheaper.
Would I like better IQ with a bigger sensor? Absolutely, but when faced with the other constrains associated with it (bigger, heavier and more expensive lenses) I think I'll pass. IMHO MFT sits in the comfort zone of size, weight, price and IQ. In other words, it's the best package. Well, for me at lest.
@Luka: Where are the compact APS-C lenses? Do you mean "dead" among alt users or in general? Most people will use m4/3 with the AF lenses and we even see this among the alt users on FM. It's obviously the best option for that format, and the NEX relies on alt lenses for a lack of any decent lenses made by Sony (or Zeiss so far). I don't know about the Samsung offerings.
denoir wrote:
I was pretty sure that since the introduction of the compact ASP-C lenses, m4/3 would die. After all, ASP-C is to m4/3 what m4/3 is to a 2/3" P&S. So why isn't m4/3 dead or even dying?
For me, the appeal of the EP-3 is the size and the looks (Yes. I'm a girl after all. So shoot me.) I LOVE my 7D and all my lenses, but when I hiked in Rago National Park (Norway) for a few days, of course I couldn't bring the 7D, and I missed a lot of phot ops. Tent, food, sleeping bags - there just wasn't any room. But a EP-3 with one standard zoom and one tele for all the lemmings I couldn't take photos of with my G10... Yes, that would fit the bill. I think what will eventually happen with my setup is that I'll take the phone for snapshots, an EP-3 for hiking and such, and the Canon for anything where weight/size isn't an issue.
denoir wrote:
I must say that I'm curious what makes somebody choose m4/3 over the newer generation of ASP-C compacts such as the NEX. Is it the availability of good native AF lenses?
That is the biggest reason for me. No UWA available at all, two to choose from in m43. Few telephoto options and they are big, four to choose from in m43 and they are all amazingly small.
When considering the same generation of sensors ultimately from an image quality point of view larger is always better.
m43 vs. APS-C is only a 1.25 or 1.33 crop factor which is a vanishingly small difference. Fraction of a stop. The big difference right now is amazing Sony sensor vs. not a Sony sensor - cropped vs. ever so slightly more cropped is not driving the IQ difference.
With a larger format you get better wide angle lenses, better dynamic range, better high ISO performance, more control over DoF and you get overall better performance (resolution & micro contrast) from lenses as far less strain is put on them.
All of which comes at the cost of the system being larger and heavier. The NEX is deceptive, the bodies are very small - the lenses are noticeably larger.
I was pretty sure that since the introduction of the compact ASP-C lenses, m4/3 would die.
Problem is for all intents and purposes there aren't any compact APS-C lenses available and there are tones of m43 lenses available. Give it time, APS-C will catch up. For now there is plenty of room for m43 to continue its lead in lens availability. Plus, Sony seems to be still unsure how to integrate its two different mounts. Seems like the NEX is being short changed...
After all, ASP-C is to m4/3 what m4/3 is to a 2/3" P&S.
No, that's not right. Crop from NEX to m43 is 1.33. Crop from m43 to 2/3" is 2. And there are very few 2/3" P&S around. If you mean the more common 1/2.33" P&S the crop factor from m43 is about 3.
So why isn't m4/3 dead or even dying?
Because for all the reasons above no one is offering anything remotely like it in the market place. And m43 isn't static, more bodies and more lenses coming all the time. If Sony ever gets its act together (and it does look like they are putting good effort into it) then I think you are correct there could be a serious threat to m43. That is at least two years off - Sony's lens road map is a pathetic joke at best right now. It limits itself to people who only want a single lens or Alt. folks (like here) who like attaching legacy glass (a tiny market).
FlyPenFly wrote:
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....Show more →
No disrespect and I don't mean to single you out, but I don't get this mentality. Remember the Canon D60? The Nikon D200? The Nikon D2X? The Canon 7D? All are cameras that didn't have the best noise or DR performance among their contemporaries, yet people used them and produced great photos with them. None of these cameras can measure up with today's top of the heap (ie: Canon 5D2, Nikon D3), but how did they suddenly become unusable?
There's some sort of memory disorder among camera users where as soon as a new generation comes out everything prior to it immediately becomes unusable and the benchmark of acceptability now rests at the new high-water mark. I don't know if it's confirmation bias, or cognitive inertia, or simply a desire to justify our new toys, but when I look at my EP1 I see a camera whose sensor performance sits slightly below my 7D, but well above many of my older DSLRs. I've made prints as large as 36x24 from my 300D, and from ISOs as high as ISO3200. I was happy with that camera when it was released, and I'm happy with the prints from it today. With my EP1 having vastly superior sensor performance to my 300D, how could I say it is anything but good?
And if the 300D seems too contemporary a comparison, imagine trying to shoot with the absolutely useless films of HCB's and Ansel Adams' days! THOSE cameras certainly didn't measure up, but people made them work.
So I guess you have to choose your poison:
X100: A big, buggy, noisy P&S stuck forever at 35mm-e f/2
5D2: An enormous overpriced and under-featured camera with a crap lens lineup
A850: Ditto, but also with crap high ISO
EP2: A tiny useless sensor crammed into a too-big body with slow AF
M9: Prehistoric interface and astronomical price for a MF-only camera with no good zooms and a sub-par sensor
All of these cameras are unusable crap. You'll never get anything good out of any of that lot. (Yes, that's hyperbole.)
I guess my point is, we can all slag on everything that can't keep up our idea of a dream camera or we can go shoot photos. I've seen great iPhone photos, and I've seen (and taken) horrible 5D2 photos. While people tell us how useless M43 is, there are others like Jordan who post great photos in direct contradiction to the doubters. I guess I'll take the photographic proof over Forum Wisdom any day.
artsf wrote:
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.
I just have to give a quick thumbs up to shooting macro on M43. I did a lot of that this weekend and was VERY happy to be able to shoot at f/5.6 and get good DOF (and save my flash some work), and even stop down to f/16 on occasion without any noticeable diffraction. M43 seems to be more diffraction-resistant than its 2x crop would lead you to expect. In my experience I get a "free stop" of DOF.
When I hit f/22 with my 5D I notice diffraction effects blurring the photo, and I usually live at f/8, if not f/11. This supposed M43 DOF disadvantage is a huge advantage when shooting macro.
And I agree, Live View is HUGELY useful. Especially with my GH1's swivel LCD. It's much nicer to move the camera than crane my neck. I got angled shots I never would have tried this weekend thanks to Live View.
denoir wrote:
I must say that I'm curious what makes somebody choose m4/3 over the newer generation of ASP-C compacts such as the NEX. Is it the availability of good native AF lenses?
A few factors for me:
1) Like you said, M43's lens lineup is much better than NEX. That's a temporary advantage of course, but I have also been a long-time fan of Olympus' lenses. They have historically made very compact lenses that measure up well to other makers' larger designs. (Such as the OM primes and some of the Four Thirds lenses.) I expect that trend to continue, especially considering the (large) AF lenses Sony has made thus far.
2) Olympus and Panasonic know how to make great camera bodies. I have never been impressed by Sony ergonomics. I don't want to to start a war here with that statement, it's just my opinion. I know some people like rangefinders too... I don't!
3) Even the EP1 and GH1 generation had sufficient sensor performance for my needs. Anything beyond that is gravy. I'll take a stop of DR or ISO if you give it to me, but since I shoot indoors mostly with a bounce flash, ISO6400 isn't a huge draw for me.
4) I've used APS-C cameras for a long time, and I don't see much difference between the characteristics of APS-C and 4/3. The 1.6x-2x number implies a greater difference than I see in my photos. It's hard for me to tell shots apart when I shoot my APS-C and 4/3 cameras side-by-side. (And believe me I tested a LOT when I was considering moving to 4/3!)
I know everybody has their own reasons for using one system or another. Since you asked, these are mine.
I agree with many of those above - there are compromises that µ4/3 forces, but the size/weight/performance ratio puts it well above the "good enough" mark for me.
Dynamic range is about the only thing that I miss from FX/135 format, but even then, 10.5 stops of DR is plenty for hobby shooting, and I can HDR anything where I need more DR (i.e. landscapes).
The depth of focus compromise is frankly fine by me - an f/1.8 lens on micro4/3 looks like the f/2.8 zooms and tele primes I preferred to shoot on DX and FX Nikon bodies, and nets double the shutter speed with half the size and weight. I'm tinkering with an ollllllld M42 mount Praktika Hannimex 50mm f/1.7 right now, and it's working great as a general telephoto lens, even in ridiculously low light! I rarely ever strive for super-thin depth of focus, and if I need it, I've got enough of it with my Panasonic 20/1.7, and that adapted 50/1.7.
As for the different systems (APS-C vs Micro4/3):
I previously had a Sony NEX-3, which delivered some great shots, and I liked the 16mm f/2.8 lens it came with. I also owned the Sony NEX-VG10 video camera with 18-200mm stabilized lens, and I used both lenses with both cameras! I sold the video camera and NEX-3 together when I was changing out some video gear for a documentary I'm producing/directing (I needed 24 frames/second recording, and neither offered that).
What really prompted me running like heck from the E-mount system was that Sony released an E-mount camera (the very capable NEX NXCAM FS-100), but the ergonomics of that cam (as well as the NEX-3 and VG10 that I owned) were complete poo.
Frankly, the E-mount system doesn't have a lot of native glass either, and unlike 4/3 lenses + Micro4/3 lenses, adapted Sony A-Mount lenses STRUGGLED to focus on the E-mount cameras... I'm talking glacially slow AF, and poor/choppy handling of aperture iris adjustment.
Micro 4/3 has a fantastic video offering in the Panasonic AF-100 system, and I intend to use my micro4/3 lenses as well as PL-mount cine lenses (like my Cooke 20-100 T3.1 (f/2.8)) on one in the near future.
I put the E-P3 through the paces this weekend, and it handled VERY well in some tough conditions. I gave it the "pub crawl" test on Friday night which is very challenging for even SLRs to pass for a few reasons:
-Extremely low light
-Available light only (I don't use flash at bars - that's just annoying as hell)
-Getting steady shots gets more challenging the more beers you and your subjects have
Here's how the E-P3 with 20mm f/1.7 and 7-14mm f/4 performed WITH NO FLASH, and WITH AF FOCUS ASSIST LIGHT "OFF":
For the record, these are all photos that I otherwise would not have taken with my SLR because the SLR would have been at home on my desk for a night out like this.
The best cam is the one you have with you. Take pictures!
Thanks for all the replies guys, a lot of good points. I'll just pick and choose from some of the answers:
mawz wrote:
The m43 bodies offer 3 distinct body types (SLR-alike with EVF, high-end compact with lots of controls, small compact with limited direct control), all of which NEX doesn't offer.
But if you want something SLR like, why not get a compact DSLR, such as the Pentax K-5 which AFIK significantly outperforms both m4/3 and the NEX?
In terms of IQ, m43 is far closer to APS-C than it is to 2/3". In fact the current m43 bodies significantly outperform one of the current APS-C mirrorless systems (NX) and aren't far behind the other. Only the 16MP sony sensor really has a performance advantage over the GH2 or G3 sensors (the 12MP m43 sensors are somewhat lower performing).
IQ is a broad concept and it's difficult to compare different generations of sensors. However, all things being equal the difference between an ASP-C and m4/3 should be significant. If we ignore dynamic range, noise performance etc and just look what effect it has on a lens.
To get roughly the same field of view as 75mm on FF, you'd need 50mm on ASP-C and ~37mm on m43. Suppose we use some really high quality lenses for this - the 75, 50 & 35 Leica Summicron-M and we shoot all at f/5.6 which is the optimal aperture for all of them.
Now suppose we look at some detail in an image, visible at web size - say 20 lp/mm on a full frame sensor shot with the 75mm lens. On an ASP-C we'd use a 50mm lens, and that detail would be at 20*1.5 = 30 lp/mm. On m4/3 we'd use a 35mm lens and the detail would be at 20*2 = 40 lp/mm.
We don't really have to look at MTF charts to realize that
1) As a general rule if we consider lenses of comparable price/quality, the wider lens you use the worse the MTF charts will look.
2) The MTF for 40 lp/mm is worse than the MTF for 30 lp/mm which is in turn worse than the MTF for 20 lp/mm
Let's look at the MTF charts anyway. The green region is the one that covers the frame. Since Leica doesn't provide 30 lp/mm curves, I've traced one between the 20 & 40 lp/mm.
As you can see the drop in image quality is pretty dramatic. Not only is there a drop in contrast but there is a radical increase in field curvature as you go wider and as you require a higher spatial frequency to resolve the same detail. In the m4/3 case you go from about 60 in the center to 80 in the corners. That's just ridiculous. And that's from a very high quality lens at a small aperture! You can count on the difference between 20 lp/mm and 40 lp/mm to be far more dramatic with lesser lenses. Also when using larger apertures the first thing you lose is the high frequencies so the performance comparisons would look much worse if we looked at large apertures.
With the FF you'll see a very crisp rendering of the detail, the ASP-C is still acceptable while the m4/3 approaches just gray goo. This is what a combination of being forced to use a wider lens and putting greater strain on it does. This is by the way center frame, in the corners the m4/3 will be close to the ASP-C due to the extreme field curvature.
I have only used a borrowed GF1 for a short while, and it was OK - definitely more usable than a Leica X1 and the 20/1.7 pancake was very nice. I don't have enough experience though to say anything more about it.
What I can say is that after getting used to FF, I've found ASP-C inadequate. I started off with a 7D and later got a 5DII. I really wanted to keep using the 7D as not counting the sensor, it's a better camera. I found however that I could not and I only use it now whenever I need a fast AF (almost never). Later I got an M9 and that's what I'm shooting most of the time these days. Recently I got a NEX-C3 as a backup camera. Although I really like it in many ways, the crop factor kills it for me. I'm guessing that if I got used to digital medium format cameras I would have an equally hard time going back to FF. At least for me and my type of photography sensor size is exceptionally important and bigger is better.
I do understand though that other people have other priorities. My primary point with my post was to see why people pick a camera with a smaller sensor when they have a very similar one with a larger sensor and in the same price range. The answer to that seems to be that the cameras are not all that similar except that they're compact and as I suspected the ridiculously small number of native NEX lenses that are available.
AhamB wrote:
@Luka: Where are the compact APS-C lenses? Do you mean "dead" among alt users or in general? Most people will use m4/3 with the AF lenses and we even see this among the alt users on FM. It's obviously the best option for that format, and the NEX relies on alt lenses for a lack of any decent lenses made by Sony (or Zeiss so far). I don't know about the Samsung offerings.
That's a good question. Dead among photo enthusiasts I suppose. I think that the general public doesn't care much about lenses and most are content with a 18-55 kit lens regardless of the actual quality of the lens. Those that actually do care about lens quality also probably care about sensor size.
kwalsh wrote:
All of which comes at the cost of the system being larger and heavier. The NEX is deceptive, the bodies are very small - the lenses are noticeably larger.
A very good point. Larger image circle => larger lens => larger overall package.
No, that's not right. Crop from NEX to m43 is 1.33. Crop from m43 to 2/3" is 2. And there are very few 2/3" P&S around. If you mean the more common 1/2.33" P&S the crop factor from m43 is about 3.
Yes, sorry, bad math on my part. m4/3 is to full frame what 2/3" is to m4/3.
Luka, all the Leica lenses you have demonstrated there have been designed for a 43mm illumination circle; so it is not fair to expect them perform optimally on smaller sensor sizes as they do on FF. Resolution power changes proportionally (theoretical and practical) with the correlation between the diameter of the circle of illumination and focal length. The best lenses for crop sensors are the ones designed specifically for that intended format and the oncoming over-20MP crop sensors will emphasize this difference more clearly.
Bob, you are quite right and it's a good point. There is however another factor that one must take into consideration then - the fact that lenses designed for crop sensors (be it ASP-C or m4/3) are as a rule have low cost as a high priority. So you won't find any really high end crop lenses. Well, not unless you buy cine-lenses which are usually quite good, quite large and ridiculously expensive - so I don't think they can be considered as viable alternatives.
I think what you might get that is a bit better with a lens designed for a smaller image circle is better controlled field curvature as the lens designers will probably seek to minimize it. The levels of the MTF curves (i.e the micro contrast at a spatial resolution) won't be helped by a lens specifically designed for a crop camera though.
Resolution power changes proportionally (theoretical and practical) with the correlation between the diameter of the circle of illumination and focal length.
No, not quite. The relation between the focal length and the diameter of the circle of illumination is angle of view. The resolving power of a lens is independent of the image circle and will depend on the materials used in the lenses and the optical design of the lens. So designing a lens for a smaller image circle won't per se increase its resolving power.
Sure, any talented photographer can take a great photo with any equipment you give him including an iPhone. There are people producing amazing work with MFT that is without a doubt. It is however in spite of it, not because of it.
However, why should you limit yourself to what is perhaps subpar of what is available in the market especially at the same price points. There are no lenses or compelling reason MFT can offer right now except size and weight. They are albeit two extremely important factors and it's up to every consumer to choose what they value more.
If you go to page 2 you can see two images I shot with an EPL2, probably the best sensor that Olympus has used so far and in those shots in very easy shooting conditions I KNOW I would have had better final images that I can print big with if I had a D7000 or A850 or 5d2 on me. This is a simple fact.
CKrueger wrote:
No disrespect and I don't mean to single you out, but I don't get this mentality. Remember the Canon D60? The Nikon D200? The Nikon D2X? The Canon 7D? All are cameras that didn't have the best noise or DR performance among their contemporaries, yet people used them and produced great photos with them. None of these cameras can measure up with today's top of the heap (ie: Canon 5D2, Nikon D3), but how did they suddenly become unusable?
There's some sort of memory disorder among camera users where as soon as a new generation comes out everything prior to it immediately becomes unusable and the benchmark of acceptability now rests at the new high-water mark. I don't know if it's confirmation bias, or cognitive inertia, or simply a desire to justify our new toys, but when I look at my EP1 I see a camera whose sensor performance sits slightly below my 7D, but well above many of my older DSLRs. I've made prints as large as 36x24 from my 300D, and from ISOs as high as ISO3200. I was happy with that camera when it was released, and I'm happy with the prints from it today. With my EP1 having vastly superior sensor performance to my 300D, how could I say it is anything but good?
And if the 300D seems too contemporary a comparison, imagine trying to shoot with the absolutely useless films of HCB's and Ansel Adams' days! THOSE cameras certainly didn't measure up, but people made them work.
So I guess you have to choose your poison:
X100: A big, buggy, noisy P&S stuck forever at 35mm-e f/2
5D2: An enormous overpriced and under-featured camera with a crap lens lineup
A850: Ditto, but also with crap high ISO
EP2: A tiny useless sensor crammed into a too-big body with slow AF
M9: Prehistoric interface and astronomical price for a MF-only camera with no good zooms and a sub-par sensor
All of these cameras are unusable crap. You'll never get anything good out of any of that lot. (Yes, that's hyperbole.)
I guess my point is, we can all slag on everything that can't keep up our idea of a dream camera or we can go shoot photos. I've seen great iPhone photos, and I've seen (and taken) horrible 5D2 photos. While people tell us how useless M43 is, there are others like Jordan who post great photos in direct contradiction to the doubters. I guess I'll take the photographic proof over Forum Wisdom any day. ...Show more →
FlyPenFly wrote:
If you go to page 2 you can see two images I shot with an EPL2, probably the best sensor that Olympus has used so far and in those shots in very easy shooting conditions I KNOW I would have had better final images that I can print big with if I had a D7000 or A850 or 5d2 on me. This is a simple fact.
But would you have brought any of those cameras to the beach?
Biggest pro when I had the E-P1 and Pana 20/1.7 was that I actually brought that combo with me and used it a lot more than what I do with my DSLR. Personally, I found results to be good enough for most applications. I agree about IQ not being quite up there, but it's good for what it is. I'll probably get the E-P3 as it has focus point size adj., an issue with the E-P1.
I guess for the photography I do, nothing is exceptionally important. Well, other than focal length coverage.
I shoot for pleasure. I like the look I get from my 5D and 24-70 in portraits. I like the AF speed of my 7D. I like the sharpness of my 100/2.8 macro when coupled with my MT-24EX. I'm sure if I bought some Leica lens or other I'd be very impressed with how sharp they are. But when it comes down to it, I shoot for pleasure. If I were banished to a P&S superzoom, I'd still take good pictures. My keeper rate would be lower, the sharpness of the photos would be lower, and I'd have no DOF control. But I'd still get good pictures.
The one thing I CANNOT manage is an enormous camera. How much am I willing to suffer for my art? Would I carry a view camera and a tripod capable of supporting ME? Nope. How about a medium format digital system with a few nice primes? Alluring, but no way. Full frame digital? I'll only carry it for a few hours. Micro Four Thirds? That I can manage all day if I'm out shooting. 24/7? That'll be my iPhone.
I guess my point is that I'm well past the point where I care about synthetic measurements like lp/mm or sensor attributes like image circle. ("past" is a bad term... it's not like it's a progression; more an opinion.) If the photos look nice, I'm happy. I understand I'm in in the vast minority with that kind of opinion in this kind of forum (which is why I've mostly abandoned this forum), but if people wonder why someone might buy a camera with a silly little sensor with a lens that can't produce anything near Nyquist frequency, that's why I do it. I just don't care what's in my hands, so long as the photos look good. And despite what an MTF chart might say, my EP3 and its kit lens can take some pretty nice pictures.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Sure, any talented photographer can take a great photo with any equipment you give him including an iPhone. There are people producing amazing work with MFT that is without a doubt. It is however in spite of it, not because of it.
However, why should you limit yourself to what is perhaps subpar of what is available in the market especially at the same price points. There are no lenses or compelling reason MFT can offer right now except size and weight. They are albeit two extremely important factors and it's up to every consumer to choose what they value more.
If you go to page 2 you can see two images I shot with an EPL2, probably the best sensor that Olympus has used so far and in those shots in very easy shooting conditions I KNOW I would have had better final images that I can print big with if I had a D7000 or A850 or 5d2 on me. This is a simple fact....Show more →
Is not size and weight a consideration? Would you shoot with a view camera? You can get the equipment pretty cheap. Cheaper than an A850 and a stable of lenses for it, at least.
I don't see M43 as sub-par. Yes the IQ from a FF DSLR could be better. I AM giving up IQ for convenience. But I'm giving up a little IQ for a LOT of convenience. Perhaps that's just the difference in how you and I judge IQ. I do consider a few of the shots to come out of my G10 to be pretty good, for example.
I think one thing you said to be a perfect illustration of why people like these small cameras. You would have gotten a better final image with your A850. Nobody is going to argue that. But you had the EPL2 with you instead. Just like you might have a NEX camera with you today. And then you might get a bit better noise, but the IQ from the NEX lens lineup is lower. So either way you're stuck with something less than the best image possible.
So what do you do? Bring your A850 everywhere? And what happens when Ansel Adams Jr sets up his 8x10 next to you and shoots a photo with significantly better IQ? When does it end? Where is the bar at which IQ is acceptable? Obviously your bar is higher than mine. That should tell you why I'm scratching my head why you'd lug such a giant hunk of camera with you while you're scratching your head why I'd even bother using a camera with such low IQ. (Please forgive me if that sounds combative, that's not my intent.)
FWIW, I would have been happy with the beach image. You obviously do PP, so I would have just turned the NR up a bit in LR. I know the noise you speak of; even my 7D exhibits it. To me it's no big deal; it comes out with NR in large prints, and I ignore it in small prints.
