ISO1600 wrote:
I like how the FM'ers that don't support M4/3 are coming out of the woodwork.
Perhaps it's because those that like MFT have better things to do than argue with people who have already decided that they don't like MFT for one reason or another, often without even having used one of the cameras.
I'll say just this. I still have my Canon system because:
1) I prefer the 7D's OVF over the GH1's EVF for macro
2) The 7D's AF is faster for sports/action/BIF
3) My Canon 300/2.8IS + 2x TC has the best reach+IQ+AF/weight ratio of any lens on any system I know
4) There's no good/cheap/fast normal zoom like my Tamron 28-75/2.8 for MFT
When MFT solves those things, I'm going to sell my entire Canon system and go with MFT. DOF is not a problem; it's only 2/3 stop behind APS-C, and with alt lenses the system is already fast where it counts (50mm-100mm).
I mostly just don't understand how the "FM'ers that don't support M4/3" are so negative towards a relatively new format and comparing it to 4 thousand dollar systems that are much larger...
"should be full frame" - how does one expect panasonic and oly to keep a camera down to a thousand dollar mark with a full frame sensor...
i think you guys are being unreasonable, i'm just going to go take pictures
'My "x" 7 thousand dollar system beats it' is such a ridiculous proposition, honestly completely blown away by the logic of it. I didn't realize this forum had such a share of it's troll posters and i'm kind of saddened by this thread.
systemlayers wrote:
I mostly just don't understand how the "FM'ers that don't support M4/3" are so negative towards a relatively new format and comparing it to 4 thousand dollar systems that are much larger...
"should be full frame" - how does one expect panasonic and oly to keep a camera down to a thousand dollar mark with a full frame sensor...
i think you guys are being unreasonable, i'm just going to go take pictures
'My "x" 7 thousand dollar system beats it' is such a ridiculous proposition, honestly completely blown away by the logic of it. I didn't realize this forum had such a share of it's troll posters and i'm kind of saddened by this thread. ...Show more →
Wow. Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? ;-)
Seriously, most of the people posting here are regulars and not "trolls". I would also point out an unrestrained, non-critical love for the format would not be appropriate either. Certainly you would agree that the MFT system is a set of compromises. Identifying those compromises and the limitations that come with them is a valid and welcome activity. Many of the people in the forum have been looking for a camera like this for a long time, including my self. Would I prefer something that performs better, used a FF sensor (yes, please), was less noisy, etc. Sure. But until then, this might fill a temporary need in certain situations. From the discussion here, it is clearly a camera that is "in addition to", rather than "in place of". For me, it's something to carry in the back pocket of my cycling jersey, or to stuff in a jacket just in case something turns up. But it's not going to do serious, planned work for me. Understanding the strengths and weakness of the systems from an objective discussion in this forum is quite helpful in determining whether this system will work in some way for you. It's go to know how it compares to my "x" 7 thousand dollar system, so I know if I can use it and where. An unrestrained love-fest isn't very helpful to anyone.
i do not hate M4/3 just because it is what it is.... if they addressed a lot of the problems, it could be much better, and be a good stopgap between PnS and FF DSLR/DRF.
Until then, i'd rather shoot film, or scribble things on napkins.
Navyblue wrote:
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. ...Show more →
That's a problem with TruPic V, not with m43 in general. The Pen's give up some low ISO IQ to get high ISO IQ, the G's do better and are every bit as smooth outside of the deep shadows as most APS-C cameras (which is something I continually fight with, I hate that excessive smoothness and prefer a bit of grit even in my skies).
In my experience, Nikon has the strongest set of advantages in the current line, with all but the D3000 having an advantage over m43, Canon's a mixed bag, with the T1i and 7D having an advantage and the XS, XSi and 50D being comparable or worse depending on exactly what you're looking at.
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.
There's a big difference between 'complete lack of DoF control' which is simply not the case and 'I can't get the same DoF as I can on FF with a fast lens' which is very definitely the case.
Shalow DoF is entirely achievable and controllable on m43, I do it all the time. It's just never as shallow as you can achieve on FF, just like FF 35mm can't achieve the shallow DoF I can get with a fast lens on MF.
ISO1600 wrote:
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.
Either you are not understanding where the m4/3rds fits into the picture OR you don't own/use the system OR maybe you simply can't tell the difference between a watermelon and a Mamiya (which is fine too) OR all of the above.
The m4/3rds appear to be holding up well against the entry level D-SLR's. Yes it is a young format and no it does not have the 14+ years of development the digital SLR's of today have. If you can look back to the E-10 or D30 or D1 from a decade ago, the m4/3rds are much further ahead today than these first digital SLR's were back then. It's all relative.
The m4/3rds is a go between for me. I can carry 32lbs of Nikon D3/D700 and lenses or I can settle for under 6lbs of m4/3rds gear. I can live with the image quality it offers as long as I use the system for it's intended purpose.
ISO1600 wrote:
i do not hate M4/3 just because it is what it is.... if they addressed a lot of the problems, it could be much better, and be a good stopgap between PnS and FF DSLR/DRF.
Until then, i'd rather shoot film, or scribble things on napkins.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Wow. Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? ;-)
Seriously, most of the people posting here are regulars and not "trolls". I would also point out an unrestrained, non-critical love for the format would not be appropriate either. Certainly you would agree that the MFT system is a set of compromises. Identifying those compromises and the limitations that come with them is a valid and welcome activity. Many of the people in the forum have been looking for a camera like this for a long time, including my self. Would I prefer something that performs better, used a FF sensor (yes, please), was less noisy, etc. Sure. But until then, this might fill a temporary need in certain situations. From the discussion here, it is clearly a camera that is "in addition to", rather than "in place of". For me, it's something to carry in the back pocket of my cycling jersey, or to stuff in a jacket just in case something turns up. But it's not going to do serious, planned work for me. Understanding the strengths and weakness of the systems from an objective discussion in this forum is quite helpful in determining whether this system will work in some way for you. It's go to know how it compares to my "x" 7 thousand dollar system, so I know if I can use it and where. An unrestrained love-fest isn't very helpful to anyone.
I'm one of the m43 boosters here. But it fits very well with what I shoot most of the time and I'm well aware that m43 cannot replace a DSLR for some uses. The best comparison for m43 is probably film rangefinders, a small, limited system but extremely competent within the limitations of the system and with some distinct advantages in certain situations.
To me m4/3 fills the requirement of "the best camera is the one you have with you". If you've ever spend a lot of time hiking, you'll know exactly what I mean-- the weight savings of the m4/3 system makes the difference b/w having a camera with me on a long hike, or not.
alexandre wrote:
Are m43 cameras AF good enough to have a high keeper rate shooting TIF (toddlers in fun)?
This is a serious question, even with a smiley.
I have 4, ages 7mo to almost 7 years, and for the most part, yes, although you will need a 1D III for the hardcore stuff. My 7 mo. old is actually the hardest, because she tends to make small, quick, jerky movements, where-as the older kids make more deliberate movements, that I, and the camera, have an easier time dealing with.
I'd say as good of a keeper rate as anything but the 7D/D300 or 1D series or D3 series cameras.
90% of of sample images I see from MFT are of Logs, Dogs and Flowers, or a close-up of Jimmy.
I shoot street mostly and love hanging a 5D and Olympus 55mm f/1.2 around my neck and a 24mm or 28mm in my pocket. A couple of cigars and a hot drink and I'm in heaven.
If I need something small I want it to fit in my pocket, no lens changes, and produce acceptable images, something capable of print if need be. My brother purchased a Canon S90 and it appears to be the solution for me without breaking the bank. Acceptable results in a small package.
The MFT starts the money drain all over again and I'm kinda snug with a buck. Sorry, not going there.
Dream machine for me is form factor and sensor size of Leica M9 for $2000-$2500 in EOS mount. Until then, I'm on the sidelines admiring all the Logs, Dogs, and flowers.
Enjoy your captures!
Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention that I have a Canon 400mm f/2.8L II that hasn't worked out so well for street shooting. Anybody need a bazooka for their MFT set-up. Might be kinda off balance and awkward though, especially held out at arms length.
Maybe too jittery? Ya think!
Btw, if you really like the grit that you don't see on the real sky, you can always shoot at higher ISO, or add them in PP.
Which is in fact exactly what I do, I tend to shoot at higher ISO's to get the grit which simply isn't there at low ISO's, ISO 640 is my go-to setting for shots with a lot of sky, it's just noisy enough to get a bit of grit which sharpening will bring out.
alexandre wrote:
Are m43 cameras AF good enough to have a high keeper rate shooting TIF (toddlers in fun)?
This is a serious question, even with a smiley.
They're better than low-end DSLR's due to face detection actually working, but can't touch the higher-end kit. The biggest problem isn't the AF but the inability to track a moving bject while machine-gunning due to interruptions in the LV feed.
Joseph Marney wrote:
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.
You're not making a like-to-like comparison here since the 7D and MFT sensor are not constructed in the same fashion. Nikon and Canon have better capabilities to design and produce sensors and the subsystems that go with them. It's not all about pixel pitch and density - it's the underlying technology. Panasonic and Olympus will have to get really serious about high ISO quality and invest a lot of money to compete with the big boys here - but I suspect they'll always be a step or two behind.
With all that said, it looks like there's been a strong upsurge in MFT interest lately - I didn't realize this thread was still going. I still absolutely love my GF1, even though it isn't as good as my D700 at the fringes of the performance envelope. But I reckon I've taken more good photos in the past three months than I did last year with my D700, just because I have the GF1 with me all the time and so I'm able to capture the fleeting moments that get lost when you can't stick your favorite camera in your pocket.
Sam Bennett wrote:
You're not making a like-to-like comparison here since the 7D and MFT sensor are not constructed in the same fashion. Nikon and Canon have better capabilities to design and produce sensors and the subsystems that go with them. It's not all about pixel pitch and density - it's the underlying technology. Panasonic and Olympus will have to get really serious about high ISO quality and invest a lot of money to compete with the big boys here - but I suspect they'll always be a step or two behind.
No, that was my point--the 7D shows what quality can be achieved at that pixel pitch. If Oly/Pana stay reasonable with the resolution, and like you said, get really serious about other aspects of IQ, then I think they have a real winner.
