Jman13
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.10 #10 · Switched entirely to Micro4/3 | |
Ok, so I read that back (I wrote it on my phone) and I seem to jump a bit....to clarify and sum up:
I disagree with those who feel that m4/3 is barely a step above point and shoots and there's no reason for them to exist because they don't have the image quality of full frame and aren't pocketable as a system. In many cases, especially at non-enormous print sizes at ISO 1600 and below, they compete very well with APS-C cameras and even full frame cameras in many cases. Are they as good as the newest stuff, or even my 1Ds II? No, not quite. Can I see it in a 12x18" print? Not really, unless the DR is really being stretched in the shot...and in those rare cases, I can shoot an HDR to get better DR. My m4/3 kit is 1/4 the weight of my former full FF kit, and while I lose out on a little absolute image quality and extreme shallow DOF capability, it's well worth the weight and size cutting FOR ME.
I posted about what I feel are excellent ergonomics, fantastic EVF for accurate and fast manual focusing, and extremely quick and accurate single shot AF as these are perks I don't get with my 1Ds II, and they make my decision to go m4/3 even more pleasing for me. If you need serious continuous AF, m4/3 is not for you. For single shot AF, I've never had a camera as quick and accurate.
Noise: Yes, m4/3 is worse than modern APS-C and FF sensors. My point is that for what I shoot, it's pretty much irrelevant. At ISO 1600 and even 3200, it's about half a stop worse than my 1Ds II. At lower ISOs, it's maybe a stop worse. The thing is, I've found even with higher noise levels, they are invisible in the print sizes I typically use, and I have never felt the need to print a really huge print at high ISO...almost all my high ISO stuff is candid portraiture, which I tend to print small. Plus, I have never bought into the noise religion. I don't really care if an image has a little bit of visible noise...it has never bothered me. Bad blotchy chroma noise and banding? Yes. Even, grain like noise? Not really.
M4/3 is not a perfect system...but it's a very good one, especially for the kind of shooting I do. I am not saying everyone should get it...absolutely not. If I ever became a working pro, I'd probably immediately buy a 5D II and some L glass again...and use my m4/3 kit for liesure use. But there you're competing against other photographers for business, and you never know how huge a picture your client may want...you want to have every available option covered. If you print huge even non professionally, you may want a newer, larger format system, but for me, the weight just isn't worth it any more. I have so much more fun shooting now without lugging so much darn gear around. You may be different. I was for a while...always springing for the next great lens, the next great body that I could afford...when I realized that it didn't ultimately matter as to whether I got a great shot or not.
I prefer m4/3 to NEX despite the sensor being better in the newer NEX bodies, because the lenses are better on m4/3, and there's a much larger selection of AF glass out there. I shoot a lot of ultra-wide stuff, so the presence of great UWA lenses and fisheyes on m4/3 are what swayed me there. I have had an E-p1 for a while, but the downfalls of that body (slow to operate, slow and imprecise AF, not quite good enough IQ for my taste...) kept it as an 'occasional' body. After getting the 7-14, I seriously began looking at switching all the way over, and the GH2 was good enough in IQ to make the switch well worth it...the fact that the AF is blazing and precise and I find the body ergonomically excellent cemented the deal.
So, there it is.
|
I's say two things here. One, when I look at ancient photos from old digital cameras I don't expect much. I knew this day (2011) was coming so I didn't expect anything from them at the time either. The earliest shots you show there I would say are exceptionally good considering. I have a few hundred shots from 1, 2, and 4 mega-pixel cameras each and at the time of photographing I didn't expect them to be "useful" even a year later. The industry moved MUCH slower than I thought tho so they actually were useful for several years.