Not that great a picture but i took this picture of a coyote on the way to banff with the 20 1.7 and it wouldn't have been possible (well likely not) with a p&s or dslr.
The gf1 is very fast and freeing.
Taken at 1/1250 a second going down the highway... camera was sitting to my side removed cap and took shot just after it passed in front of me (shot @ 1.7 through a frosty window).
it was satisfying for me at least
I have no trouble identifying images taken with the former D200 from the current Sony A900; and the 5D is the only modern Canon I was ever interested in...hey, I must be an aging outlier too, as the whole 'small camera images are as good as DSLR images' idea just never made sense! Much like medium format and 35mm film output. An empty backpack is much more pleasurable to carry...
No matter how much I looked at M. Reichmann's (deeply flawed) pseudo-comparison. And 72/96ppi is not the ideal means of analysis...
Reichman's comparisons only hold water for certain types of photography, and really point out the folly of putting so much emphasis on "IQ" over other things. Image quality is important to me, but in my experience owning a dozen different digital cameras, it is the factor with probably the least amount of variability (with exception being the extremes of high ISO) performance. Most dSLRs (and MFT) cameras, as well as a lot of P&Ses can deliver very high quality images. It all comes down to [I]capability[/I] for me. The big difference between crop and FF dSLRs for me isn't in fundamental sensor-level quality, it is the palpable, practical difference in how you can approach shooting with each camera. You can shoot images with a fast zoom
on an FF camera that can only be reproduced with a fast prime om a crop camera, that's just a fact. Sometimes that matters, sometimes it doesn't. Likewise, MFT cameras give you quality that is in fact quite good, but they don't give you the same capabilities as an FF camera - but they give you things FF can't. True compactness, an AF system that allows you to shoot in fundamentally different ways, compatability with a mind-boggling number of lenses, etc. So again, it's not an either-or thing as far as I'm concerned.
cogitech wrote:
Sorry, but I have to laugh. Not at you or anyone else. Just at the thought of spending any time using the menus in my camera. Other than formatting cards and enabling/disabling MLU, I cannot remember the last time I used my camera's menus. I cannot ever remember being in a rush to format my card or enable/disable MLU, either.
What are you all doing in your menus? What is this world coming to?
?
I don;t understand the love afair with menu's either.
CKrueger wrote:
I had the same problem, and even looking at photos now I say to myself "definitely a 5D" for some of the ones that have that "certain something". Back when I was trying to decide which system I should keep, I took my 5D, 40D, and E-510 out and shot them as best I could. I matched settings to make the photos identical for framing and DOF, cropped the E-510 to 3:2, then did a double-blind test with fully-processed photos on my 30" monitor. I enlisted my wife's help during my "quiz".
This is a great point, and a lot of time there is much more to the photo than the camera- BUT, a 5D compared to those two cameras.... you would have to handicap the 5D to get the same DoF and framing. The size of the format is the biggest drawback to M4/3, and that will never EVER change, because the format is what it is. Just like Nikon's DX is still stupid, even though they have a bunch of great DX lenses, i don't give a sh!t about M4/3 because it is a dead end (for me).
I would rather make paintings or write poems about the human condition, than use a M4/3 camera.
ISO1600 wrote:
This is a great point, and a lot of time there is much more to the photo than the camera- BUT, a 5D compared to those two cameras.... you would have to handicap the 5D to get the same DoF and framing. The size of the format is the biggest drawback to M4/3, and that will never EVER change, because the format is what it is. Just like Nikon's DX is still stupid, even though they have a bunch of great DX lenses, i don't give a sh!t about M4/3 because it is a dead end (for me).
I would rather make paintings or write poems about the human condition, than use a M4/3 camera....Show more →
The problem with this take is that the DoF effects are really only visible when shooting shallow DoF work. For most work, the results are nearly indistinguishable between the 5D and a similar 12MP APS-C or 4/3rds camera.
It is something I've tested. Given similar resolution, there is just not that much difference in IQ between all of the larger-sensor formats until you hit the edge cases (high ISO, shallow DoF or high dynamic range scenes) where FF has a serious advantage over the smaller formats. There's very little difference between the crop formats in real-world shooting, something that I found surprising, I was not expecting that result when I compared the G1 to the D300 (and later the E-30 to my D300 files), it ended up leading to me selling the D300 because I really didn't need its actual advantages over the G1 and E-30 (Speed and build) when it really didn't have much of an IQ advantage.
ISO1600 wrote:
Just like Nikon's DX is still stupid, even though they have a bunch of great DX lenses, i don't give a sh!t about M4/3 because it is a dead end (for me).
You know, I hesitate to respond to this since you're a great example of poor signal to noise ratio in photography forums (frankly, I'm surprised the FM staff have allowed you to stick around, given you tendencies), but I just have to point out how utterly idiotic this statement is. DX isn't "stupid", it just (apparently) isn't good for what you do. DX is a fantastic format for people who find themselves fighting shallow DoF. Believe it or not, not everyone wants razor-thin DoF in every single photo and so this is one case in which increased DoF can be a boon. This is something that differentiated 35mm from medium formats - more compact bodies, increased DoF making fast primes such as f/1.4s really usable, etc. and likewise this is something that differentiates MFT from FF 35mm cameras. If it's unsuitable for you, fine - but to call such differences "stupid" is immature, short sighted and, frankly, pathetic.
I would (and DO) rather shoot film than a small sensor. I was just on vacation in Korea, and shot more with my 1969 Nikon F than my 2009 awesome Canon powershot SD940IS.
I wonder if i could get my name changed on here to be "don't take me seriously".
I agree, Sam. While the smaller formats do not suit me at all (so far) I think it is ridiculous to call them "stupid". However, I also think it is ridiculous to attack someone's choice to use a (relatively) outdated FF camera by calling it a dust-sucking dinosaur.
cogitech wrote:
However, I also think it is ridiculous to attack someone's choice to use a (relatively) outdated FF camera by calling it a dust-sucking dinosaur.
I hope you're not implying I did that, because I didn't.
Sam Bennett wrote:
You know, I hesitate to respond to this since you're a great example of poor signal to noise ratio in photography forums (frankly, I'm surprised the FM staff have allowed you to stick around, given you tendencies), but I just have to point out how utterly idiotic this statement is. DX isn't "stupid", it just (apparently) isn't good for what you do. DX is a fantastic format for people who find themselves fighting shallow DoF. Believe it or not, not everyone wants razor-thin DoF in every single photo and so this is one case in which increased DoF can be a boon. This is something that differentiated 35mm from medium formats - more compact bodies, increased DoF making fast primes such as f/1.4s really usable, etc. and likewise this is something that differentiates MFT from FF 35mm cameras. If it's unsuitable for you, fine - but to call such differences "stupid" is immature, short sighted and, frankly, pathetic....Show more →
Great post Sam. As with all things there are some 'me too' trends in photography, most notably (for me) tonemapped HDR, extreme shallow DOF and tilt-shift miniaturization. These things have their place, but it seems that they get used in place of proper composition a lot of the time. MFT seems like a great idea, and given how many people are picking it up, it appears a lot of people agree. With a decent EVF, I'd pick one up as a travel setup.
Thought I would update the thread based on recent findings with my E-P2 and GH1.
Not surprising.... but the E-P2 is not the best suited for fast motion photography. I am not talking birds in flight or sports action - but the "lets see if I can get an active 1yr old in a shot that is in full focus".
With fast moving subjects, the keeper rate is lower than I am used to with my Nikon and I get more keepers when shooting in manual focus than with AF. The olympus m4/3rds lenses are simply not cut out for fast action shots. Either that or maybe I need more time to get accustomed to shooting with the E-P2.
The GH1 on the other hand with the 14-140mm does provide for a slightly better rate of keepers. I also tried the 14-140 on the E-P2 and while the AF is a bit better than with the Olympus lens, the keeper rate on the GH1 is still a bit higher. My frame of comparison is with a Nikon D700 + 24-70 AF-S where a shot is seldom missed or out of focus.
That said, if shooting stills, the E-P2 has surpassed my expectations - very nice color and simply amazing ease of use. The images are sharp and crisp and I have a hard time telling which images are from the E-P2 and which are from a D700. I am in love with the fact that I could walk around with the E-P2 and Panasonic 20mm f1.7 all day long and not need even feel it.
The Panasonic 20mm f1.7 seems to be a better fit for the E-P2 than it is for the Panasonic camera's. The E-P2 came with the Olympus 17mm f2.8 which is actually smaller in size than the 20mm f1.7, but I have not tried this lens yet as I am having a hard time taking the 20mm f1.7 off the E-P2
Sam Bennett wrote:
You know, I hesitate to respond to this since you're a great example of poor signal to noise ratio in photography forums (frankly, I'm surprised the FM staff have allowed you to stick around, given you tendencies), but I just have to point out how utterly idiotic this statement is. DX isn't "stupid", it just (apparently) isn't good for what you do. DX is a fantastic format for people who find themselves fighting shallow DoF. Believe it or not, not everyone wants razor-thin DoF in every single photo and so this is one case in which increased DoF can be a boon. This is something that differentiated 35mm from medium formats - more compact bodies, increased DoF making fast primes such as f/1.4s really usable, etc. and likewise this is something that differentiates MFT from FF 35mm cameras. If it's unsuitable for you, fine - but to call such differences "stupid" is immature, short sighted and, frankly, pathetic....Show more →
Chalk me up as one who absolutely loves the extra DoF I can get in low light. It's saved a lot of shots, especially on the E-30 where I can't nail manual focus as well as I can with the G1 when shooting at f1.4 in low light. DoF effects are generally not a win in the sort of light that forces you to wide open on a fast lens as the only option.
There's times where I do prefer the shallow DoF FF can give, but the chances are if I'm doing that sort of shooting, MF is an option and my 80/1.9 is absolutely wonderful on 645 for shallow DoF work.
ISO1600 wrote:
This is a great point, and a lot of time there is much more to the photo than the camera- BUT, a 5D compared to those two cameras.... you would have to handicap the 5D to get the same DoF and framing. The size of the format is the biggest drawback to M4/3, and that will never EVER change, because the format is what it is. Just like Nikon's DX is still stupid, even though they have a bunch of great DX lenses, i don't give a sh!t about M4/3 because it is a dead end (for me).
I would rather make paintings or write poems about the human condition, than use a M4/3 camera....Show more →
You quoted me a bit out of context, there. The very next sentence was: I was surprised to find that I had a LOT of trouble distinguishing most of the photos. I wasn't much better at picking the correct camera than random chance. Embarrassingly I sometimes picked the Four Thirds camera as the best of all, which I never suspected.
I could convince myself the 5D has a special something about it, but when put to a purely objective test, I could not reliably pick it out. Thus it stands to reason that the "magic" I'm seeing is a figment of my imagination--I WANT the 5D to be special, so I see it. Maybe I don't have the "magic eye" of a true connoisseur. If that's the case, I am truly fortunate.
The DOF thing has been beaten to death. Everybody understands the math. Long story short, if you spend a lot of time shooting at f/2.0 on FF and would be appalled to get more DOF than that, you're not going to be happy on MFT.
I for one, like to be able to control my DoF. You simply cannot do that on M4/3 (i will not call it MFT), nor can you do it on DX. I don't shoot medium format because it is not as portable as 35mm/FX/FF. If it was, i would.
edit: i don't feel that i quoted you out of context, because what i quoted is exactly what i meant to. You set up the test to be in favor of similar results. If you were to test them differently, you wuold get different results. That is where the "5D" look comes from. Shallow DoF.
Remember before the D3 came out? The "Canon look" was shallow DoF that we were getting with our bigger sensors. DX fans just didn't understand it.
also, comparing a 5D to M4/3 anything is like comparing a Land Rover to a Ford Focus.
One is good at certain things, the other is good at different things (like being small).
