kwalsh wrote:
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?).
Well, the 17's decent, much better than its equivalent on 4/3rds (the 25 pancake), but the 14-42 was a real letdown.
Oly seems to be designing for size above all else, a different approach than they took with 4/3rds. I hope they got over it as I have hopes for the 9-18.
From what I have seen, the optical quality of the Olympus micro 4/3rds lenses are significantly below those of the exceptional Olympus 4/3rds lenses. This is not good for a company that has always been known as providing superior lenses. Panasonics micro 4/3rds offerings seem to trounce those from Olympus thus far.
I would be excited if they could make a full-frame EP-1... A 'Micro-Full Frame' if you will. The short register distance would allow for adaptation of a whole gamut of glass, rangefinder, FD, Konica etc without the crop factor.
The pixel pitch of the 12mp m43 cameras and the Canon 7D are in the same ballpark. If they don't go nuts with the resolution, image quality should be able to get close or better than 1.5/1.6 crop DSLRs.
And they are getting better. There was improvement from the 10mp generation 4/3 cameras to the 12mp, and I think we'll see another improvement in the near future.
helimat wrote:
I would be excited if they could make a full-frame EP-1... A 'Micro-Full Frame' if you will. The short register distance would allow for adaptation of a whole gamut of glass, rangefinder, FD, Konica etc without the crop factor.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
From what I have seen, the optical quality of the Olympus micro 4/3rds lenses are significantly below those of the exceptional Olympus 4/3rds lenses. This is not good for a company that has always been known as providing superior lenses. Panasonics micro 4/3rds offerings seem to trounce those from Olympus thus far.
The quality from the m.Zuiko's is pretty comparable with Oly's SG (consumer-grade) offerings in the 4/3rds line as is the pricing. Oly has yet to introduce a m43 lens comparable optically, in build or in price to their superb HG or SHG lenses.
Panasonic's offerings do trounce the Oly's, but at extra cost in most cases. The Panasonic offerings are (aside from the two kit lenses) more in line with the HG series in 4/3rds in price, build and performance.
i've been saying all along they are a complete waste of time.
If all you care about is adapting lenses- hell, i can stick a Mamiya 300 APO on a damn watermelon, but it doesn't mean i'll take pictures with a watermelon.
The sensors are too small and crappy, and saying it's a young format doesn't even scratch the surface. There are still a ton of issues to work out.
systemlayers wrote:
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. ...Show more →
after reading this, i want to punch you in the face
That's not very nice...
I don't see what's so bad about a smaller sensor.
Unless i'm printing past 5x7 or looking for ultra low iso i think a micro 4/3 camera can handle really well... the differences are too small to sweat having a near pocketable camera.
Some of us don't have the money to invest in an M9.
haha, please don't take offense to it, it's my dark humor.
I just think there is so much more to photography, and LIFE, than adapting lenses all the time. A Canon S90 is much more pocketable than any M4/3, and will take great pictures, while costing half as much (or less).
I have no desire for an M9, i'd much rather shoot a $600 M4-2 with a beat up Voigtlander lens on it. Or my Nikon F or F2 (my F is sitting here at work with me).
I agree it's just that i have a collection of FD lenses some of which aren't even worth very much anyways and would rather use them than have them wasted.
I've already justified my collection all i want now is an mp-e 65mm, i tried to avoid is as long as i could.
But some around here are more hobbyists than photographers let's admit, a lot of the best (in any 'artistic' field) lets admit could take crappy materials and create something beautiful with them.
I don't have a point and shoot camera actually and i have a jacket that the gf1 fits nicely into so it works for me.
And of course film cameras are great tools... price vs. performance i could have easily bought a used mamiya or something.
For me the purchase wasn't about pure performance.
My beef with the IQ of MFT is not so much with the higher ISO, but with the base ISO. It just can not produce silky smooth noiseless pictures that APS-C sensor DSLR from the major brands. Base ISO on E-P1 is like ISO400 on 40D, while ISO1600 on 40D is about ISO800 on E-P1. I believe all of the current batch of Canon and Nikon APS-C bodies matches or exceed the 40D on IQ, those are not few IMO. Of course if you are comparing to the sub par Sony bodies it might be a different story. Canikon APS-C bodies does have a stop advantage in IQ over the 4/3.
While I can have an effective 100/0.95, I'll take a 50/1.4 with a 40D over it any time. And it's way cheaper too, not to mention the choice of having AF.
As for MF with EVF, yes it's more accurate, but still clumsy unless you don't move the zoom in box around.
The upside is the E-P1 is image stabilized, which partially negates it's short comings.
With Samsung now in the game, if the big boys jump in things will get a lot more interesting. After which third party makers will jump in and we can have some serious choices.
the biggest drawback to me, and if this could be fixed i'd be able to "live with" the other numerous issues, is complete lack of DoF control.
I'm sure there is some math involved (DoF calculators and such), but to get the same DoF and FoV on a M4/3 camera as my 50/1.4 on film or FX.... i'd need like a 25mm f0.45 or something crazy like that.
ISO1600 wrote:
the biggest drawback to me, and if this could be fixed i'd be able to "live with" the other numerous issues, is complete lack of DoF control.
I'm sure there is some math involved (DoF calculators and such), but to get the same DoF and FoV on a M4/3 camera as my 50/1.4 on film or FX.... i'd need like a 25mm f0.45 or something crazy like that.
You would need a 25/0.75 (no need for calculators), but it is still crazy. And yes, this is the main drawback I experience with my little G1 camera. This is not anything that will be fixed over time either. By time, however, we'll get LIVE FF cameras instead.
None of the µ4/3rds are pocketable; I have owned them all (and the two DPs). I really want this format to succeed (I vote with my wallet, much to my girlfriend's angst). As well, I bought the G11 and the S90.
I kept the G1 and the S90, as written about elsewhere here. The S90 produces very good images, considering its sensor size, and I shot a job in the Caymans with it (I did not have another camera with me). The G1 with the kit lens would have done a slightly better job—but it is a way larger camera.
If µ4/3rds could ever have FF (which the µ4/3rds standard does not address; µ4/3rds is the sensor spec.) then it could be amazing. For now, I use the G1 as the 'cat-cam' (the camera I have hanging around the house for those kind of moments). Having sad that, the odd time I use the D700 and one of its lenses for the same kind of snapshots, I am reminded of the incredible gap that still exists between a good FF camera and any of the µ4/3rd's offerings.
Nonetheless, I wish the format well. I will probably get the Lumix 7–14 at some point.
