After literally years of deliberation on mirrorless I finally took the plunge and purchased myself a E-M5 II + 12-40mm F2.8 to supplement my D800 and assortment of full frame glass.
I kept going back and forth on picking up a mirrorless. None of them seemed right. I then started looking back at m4/3. I saw the release of the mark II but didn't pay much attention to it. The more I looked at it, the more I fell in love. I then handled it in the store. Sold.
So I took the plunge. Here are some of my first few captures. I will reserve final judgement until the honeymoon period has worn off but so far I'm impressed with the extra small size, awesome build quality and great image quality.
I found this [url=[/url] on Dpreview (which I don't visit very often but being home from work sick for the second week in a row makes me go over all the forums and options a hundred times a day).
The link is from this post about "why only 16mp" for m43 cameras and why they haven't upped the resolution. The link posted is actually a short video from when the GH3 was new and how they make 5 foot prints from the files (including one 3 foot print shot at ISO 2500 and 30 second exposure).
I was really interesting, well worth three and a half minutes and it really emphasizes what should be measured with todays technology, it's the prints that matters, not pixel peeping at 200% (or even 100% in many cases).
Ps. Yes the video is obviously a marketing video from Panasonic but even on the video/web you can see the 5 foot print isn't lacking neither detail nor quality.
Agreed. m43 will never be able to compete with FF in terms of resolution/detail and low noise ... but it's certainly adequate for most applications including pro work .... except for the most demanding jobs/clients.
Wilbus wrote:
Ps. Yes the video is obviously a marketing video from Panasonic but even on the video/web you can see the 5 foot print isn't lacking neither detail nor quality.
bobbytan wrote:
... m43 will never be able to compete with FF in terms of resolution/detail and low noise ... but it's certainly adequate for most applications including pro work .... except for the most demanding jobs/clients.
Funny .... that's what they once said about 35mm compared to medium and large format.
With the right lenses and the right technique, I think M4:3 competes very nicely with some full frame cameras. My E-P5 does a better job in most environments that my old Canon 1Ds II and is considerably cleaner overall than my 5D Mark II and my Sony A850 (although I like the tonality of my A850 more). I've been a full frame shooter for a long time (beginning with the Canon 1Ds) and never thought ANY smaller sensor camera could compete with the big ones, but I'll be the first to say that I was very wrong. My M4:3 cameras are also more fun to work with than my old behemoths.
Pics were shot at the Storm King, NY sculpture garden with the Olympus E-P5 and Panasonic/Leica 25mm f/1.4.
You cannot compare technology from different generations. Yes, the m43 sensors of today are far superior to FF sensors of a few years ago ... but the FF sensors of today are even better. Let's face it, size matters, everything else being equal.
veroman wrote:
Funny .... that's what they once said about 35mm compared to medium and large format.
With the right lenses and the right technique, I think M4:3 competes very nicely with some full frame cameras. My E-P5 does a better job in most environments that my old Canon 1Ds II and is considerably cleaner overall than my 5D Mark II and my Sony A850 (although I like the tonality of my A850 more). I've been a full frame shooter for a long time (beginning with the Canon 1Ds) and never thought ANY smaller sensor camera could compete with the big ones, but I'll be the first to say that I was very wrong. My M4:3 cameras are also more fun to work with than my old behemoths.
Pics were shot at the Storm King, NY sculpture garden with the Olympus E-P5 and Panasonic/Leica 25mm f/1.4.
True size matters and yes FF sensors are better then m43, just like m43 are better then compact camera and mobile phone sensors. The question is, where does it stop to matter? I always say if it doesn't show up in print it doesn't matter. Showing photos on the web is a great way of sharing but no one will be able to tell sensor size from web sized shots. Pixel peeping something at 100% or 200% will give you a hint, m43 for example shows some noise even at ISO 200 (visible in a blue sky for example) but it's nothing that shows up in print even at large sizes.
Yeah, my D700 files that I have on my computer still look better and cleaner then a m43 file when viewed at 100% (take the sky for example) and sometimes I've regretted selling it, but when printing, I don't see it, so it's kind of a mute point. So in reality I'd say that 36x24mm sensor from 2008 still look better and cleaner the m43 from 2015 but it doesn't matter much unless it shows in print.
Unfortunately I still haven't printed really large from the Em-5, only from he Nikon D80 which was a 10mp APS-C sensor from 2006 and the 40x30 inch print I have looks awesome and I know that my 16mp m43 files will do far better then that.
I know Diego has printed some large stuff with m43(believe he has shown a picture of it in this thread before).
bobbytan wrote:
You cannot compare technology from different generations. Yes, the m43 sensors of today are far superior to FF sensors of a few years ago ... but the FF sensors of today are even better. Let's face it, size matters, everything else being equal.
Yes, size matters ... but how much? Do you remember the infamous Luminous Landscape comparison between large prints of photos taken with a Hasselblad medium format digital and a Canon G10 point and shoot? The differences were imperceptible. The comparison caused an uproar.
I think it's important to know that an $800 M4:3 camera of today is equal to or even better than an $8,000 camera of a few years ago. It gives one perspective ... particularly for newcomers who arrive on the digital scene and simply assume that a pro body with more megapixels and high cost will give them the best results. As experienced users know, that's not necessarily true. More importantly, the Canon 1Ds Mark II ("old" technology) remains a great camera, though with limitations in the areas of noise control and dynamic range. Used appropriately, though, the results are usually stellar.
Even when compared to the $6,000 1Dx (which I owned for a time), my Olympus E-P5 fairs extremely well when comparing the output from each in large prints (pixel count is similar). A few years down the road ... maybe sooner than we think ... there will be an M4:3 camera that equals or exceeds the performance of the 1Dx!
Bottom line: I think the fact that an $800 M4:3 camera matches or even exceeds the 1Ds II's performance (PARTICULARLY in the realms of D/R and noise) is a valuable and helpful piece of information.
True size matters and yes FF sensors are better then m43, just like m43 are better then compact camera and mobile phone sensors. The question is, where does it stop to matter?
Exactly We all now there is a difference between FF and m43 (or most sensor size comparisons), that's a given. But, from the aspect of intended output, when does this difference (if it's visible) actually matter?
That's a question for each photographer to answer on his/her own.
Meanwhile, I'll enjoy my m43 Another one from Colorado -- I really need to get the 12-40.
My new top of the list lens is the 7-14 though (even though I don't have the 12-40 either yet), oh how I have missed an ultra wide angle since the days of the sigma 10-20mm on APS-C
We all now there is a difference between FF and m43 (or most sensor size comparisons), that's a given. But, from the aspect of intended output, when does this difference (if it's visible) actually matter?
