I'm really excited, but I don't think its quite there yet - and I say this after shooting with every Micro 4/3 camera and everything from original PEN lenses to Leica to the Panasonic 7-14 and 20. I can live with the 2x sensor, especially after shooting with the superb 7-14 f4. And I'm packing a GH-1 to San Antonio tomorrow so its not like I don't like the mFT, I do.
But right now its still too much of a compromise for me. I want Olympus' in-body IS in a GF or E-P1 size camera with the GH-1's autofocus and viewfinder.
If I can't get that, I'll get excited when there's a more complete set of excellent lenses that will autofocus accurately. Right now the 7-14 f4 and 20 f1.7 are, to me, the only made-for-mFT excellent lenses. I have other excellent lenses I can shoot on adapters, but (and a lot of it is probably me) I can't manually focus them as accurately as I need to on the E-P1 or the GF (even with viewfinder).
really love that GF1+20/1.7 .. would compliment my canon setup nicely. but maybe when its cheaper as im in the process of getting a house so need to save money
weezintrumpete wrote:
I hear ya Sam! I started a m43 picture thread that didn't seem to take off
The problem for me is that most of my G1 stuff is going up on facebook rather than flickr (where I host me serious work). It's mostly bar and around school stuff along with the occasional bit of street I get to shoot during the week.
Most of my serious shooting happens on weekends during the school year, and I make a point of giving the other gear a workout then (mostly the E-30 and Bessa R of late, although I have a date with my 645 Super and new 300/5.6 for some fall colours in the Don)
RCicala wrote:
But right now its still too much of a compromise for me. I want Olympus' in-body IS in a GF or E-P1 size camera with the GH-1's autofocus and viewfinder.
What I want from Oly is a mini-E3. G1/GH1 formfactor, EVF, LCD and AF performance, reduced LV reset time, IBIS, weather-sealed.
Having now tried all 4 of the current m43 bodies, the E-P1 seems neither fish nor fowl to me. The GF1 does pocketable better and the G1/GH1 do full-featured better. All the E-P1 offers is IBIS and some shiny that I don't want.
Of course, I'm still waiting for Oly to downsize the E-30 into a K-7 sized package. I suspect I'll be waiting a while for either.
I am particularly interested in the GF-1 due to the video and size. 2X crop + 20/1.7 is an excellent combination for walk around, light weight, general use, and non-intimidating shooting (especially if you get the lavender one.)
Sam Bennett wrote:
...it seems like Micro 4/3rds is the ultimate mount for those who want to use a wide range of lenses. The format provides for the widest range of "compatibility" with other lens mounts - including C Mount, which IIRC not even the Leica M Mount is compatible with. It's kind of curious that you don't see a lot more excitement over the mount here.
Is it the crop factor? Lack of all-weather bodies?
Any thoughts?
The excitement will build when the cameras get better. These first gen efforts are a great start, but I'll be waiting for second or third gen and a pro model. I'd much rather a u-4/3 than a P&S, but costs are still crazy.
I really like m4/3. It's certainly not going to replace my Canon kit for serious use, but it's got very good image quality in a very small package. I have an E-P1 with Voigtlander 40/1.4 Nokton and (for another day) the 17 f/2.8. I'll have the Panny 20 f/1.7 tomorrow, which I'm excited for. I like a more normal lens for everyday use, and the extra speed will be nice, though the 17/2.8 isn't a bad lens, especially for closer subjects. The E-P1 allows me to have a very nice compact kit with SLR image quality and some low light ability that would not be possible with a compact. I do NOT use it as an SLR replacement. Nothing beats full frame for portraits (except, of course, larger formats that I can't afford) and the dynamic range and noise control on my 1Ds II is head and shoulders above the E-P1, not to mention tracking with shallow DOF... But the E-P1 blows any compact I've ever owned out of the water, and I use it quite a bit. In fact, I used my E-P1 for my favorite shot of 2009 (not counting those of my daughter, which have a heavy bias)...and it prints beautifully. From the print, there's no way to tell it wasn't taken with my 1Ds II...tons of detail and great tonal range.
FM is dominated by C and N users. MFT will find it hard going. Hence, the Alt forum is a eclectic gathering. You might look for forums that are specific to MFT, such as http://www.fourthirdsphoto.com/. Same issue with RF. There is a lot of experienced RF users on FM, but, there are numerous forums dedicated to RF or Leica. Better to go there and you will probably run into some FMers there.
More options and more opinions. Gotta love the internet.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
The excitement will build when the cameras get better. These first gen efforts are a great start, but I'll be waiting for second or third gen and a pro model. I'd much rather a u-4/3 than a P&S, but costs are still crazy.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I read this and had to laugh because the F2 I carried around had a huge MD-2 drive attached to it and weighed a ton. My Sony a900 is a much lighter, smaller rig and also gives me 5fps if needed. Heck, the Sony is even lighter than the Canon T-90 I also once used.
"size" Tariq, size is the key word in that sentence. If I had to compare any MF camera to today they would be bricks by comparison
BTW, I am surprised no one has yet to ask what a "motordrive" is hehe.
I've got the E-P1 with the 17 mm pancake, and I see it only as a replacement for my former LX3. It can't compete at all with a dSLR (FF or APS-C). On the other hand, IQ is far better than I got with the LX3, and I'm NOT talking about per-pixel sharpness.
The E-P1 is with me all the time when I'm not out just for photographing. It might not be "pocketable", but it fits in my bag and is light.
What's missing then? A viewfinder. A camera without a viewfinder isn't a camera, to me. And I'd want FAST lenses. Even 20/1.7 isn't fast enough for a sensor that is only 1/4 of the size of FF. A 20/1.0 wouldn't have to be large or heavy (2 cm entrance pupil).
I'm exited. I plan on getting a G1 + 20/1.7 + 45/2.8. Just look at the trade options I listed. However, my plans on getting a 7D, a 100/2.8 IS and possibly a 17/4 TS may be a bit of a hamper.....
What else can you adapt FD lenses or Contax G lenses to for example?
I don't get it either.
A thousand dollars for a camera you can mount leica M lenses to which is of pretty good quality imo.
I just picked up a GF1+ 20 1.7 and i'm really happy about it, fits in my jacket pocket just fine and the autofocus is FAST, the face detection so far works great.
Oh well i guess i'm fine with the lack of popularity here i don't want to see the FD 50 1.2 and Contax g 45/2 going up anytime soon...
Have a Contax g 45/2 in the mail and can't wait to test it out could be a great portrait lens.
There are many photographs you just can't take with a big clunky slr if you ask me and i'm too poor for a leica...
I mean yeah if you want top notch quality then use your clunky 1Ds to take pictures of flowers with your zeiss 50 ZE, but it's a completely different beast than a micro four thirds.
EltonTeng wrote:
I am particularly interested in the GF-1 due to the video and size. 2X crop + 20/1.7 is an excellent combination for walk around, light weight, general use, and non-intimidating shooting (especially if you get the lavender one.)
The video is great for the kiddie activities.
Exactly why I bought the GF1... I have my 5D&mk2 but for my daughter and to always have on me the GF1 w/20 is perfect.
While you can mount almost anything on MFT bodies, it's not really it's strength. While MFing with an LCD screen works, it is pretty clumsy for non tripod work. Although it is often touted as DSLR quality in a small package, it's IQ is still a notch below APS-C sensors. This together with the crop factor effectively nullifies the fact that it can mount many type of lenses. The only exception is if you are into longer lenses (100 mm and upwards FOV), even then it's only good for relatively static subjects.
C mount lenses looks interesting, however there are very little information on how they perform on MFT.
The real potential of MFT lies with the pancake fast primes, which so far only the 20/1.7 qualifies. Size and speed are the key here, both has to be there or the advantage would be blunted by quality compacts and small DSLR packages. Unfortunately there just isn't enough of them yet, not to mention that you can't even buy the 20/1.7 alone.
Navyblue wrote:
While you can mount almost anything on MFT bodies, it's not really it's strength. While MFing with an LCD screen works, it is pretty clumsy for non tripod work. Although it is often touted as DSLR quality in a small package, it's IQ is still a notch below APS-C sensors. This together with the crop factor effectively nullifies the fact that it can mount many type of lenses. The only exception is if you are into longer lenses (100 mm and upwards FOV), even then it's only good for relatively static subjects.
But MF with the EVF is actually better than MF'ing with any APS-C DSLR. And IQ is APS-C level, while worse than the best APS-C stuff it's better than many of the lower-end APS-C bodies. And ultra-fast , cheap lenses in the 70-100mm-e range is nice (show me another system with a viable 100mm f0.95 equivalent)
C mount lenses looks interesting, however there are very little information on how they perform on MFT.
Actually there is a ton of info, just have to check the right groups on flickr. Downside is that performance varies ona per-lens basis since m43 is larger than any of the native formats for C mount.
The real potential of MFT lies with the pancake fast primes, which so far only the 20/1.7 qualifies. Size and speed are the key here, both has to be there or the advantage would be blunted by quality compacts and small DSLR packages. Unfortunately there just isn't enough of them yet, not to mention that you can't even buy the 20/1.7 alone.
I agree with this, we should have 3-4 pancake primes by this time next year (Panasonic's 14/2.8, Oly's rumoured 12/2.8 added to the current two), the largest lack is a fast native-mount lens in the 25-40mm range.
Navyblue wrote:
Although it is often touted as DSLR quality in a small package, it's IQ is still a notch below APS-C sensors.
There are very few APS-C cameras that have better base ISO IQ than the G1/GF1/GH1. A few have slightly better DR, and a few have slightly better high ISO performance than the G1/GF1 though things are even closer with the GH1. I'm unaware of any that have as weak an anti-alias filter as the G-series. Worth noting that the pixel density of the G1 is actually lower than that of the 7D. Also worth noting that if like me you find 2:3 aspect unappealing and instead shoot for a 4:5 crop then the G-series actually best every APS-C on the market for IQ at base ISO.
You are spot on about lens size being critical to reaping the benefits of the smaller format. While the zooms available are amazing in their size/performance point it is the primes where things get really tiny. They need more pancakes or just small primes for sure. Especially with the GF1/EP1 the pancakes are what make the form factor appealing. This is one of the reasons I suspect it will be quite awhile before we see any real competition in the "EVIL/ILC/MILF" market - other manufacturers can yank out the mirrors and slap on EVFs but it is all about lenses that take advantage of the short flange distance and that will likely take time for any manufacturer to develop.
Now if we could get Olympus and Panasonic to stop developing identical lenses - and if we could get Olympus to design some lenses that don't suck (what the heck is up with that anyway, Olympus has amazing glass in both its distant and recent past, why the crap lenses for m43?).
