Why invest on expensive lenses when...

<p>A camera you have with you and you enjoy using is the 'best' camera.</p>

<p>Les, I must get one of those. Where did you get yours?</p>

<p>Interesting thought on the new Sony NEX from DPreview:<br>

..the ultra short registration distance of NX (2mm shorter than even Micro Four Thirds, despite the larger sensor size), which has allowed Sony to make the slimmest mirrorless cameras on the market. So why isn't Micro 4/3rds' registration distance at least as short or even shorter than NEX? For one very important reason: optical performance.<br>

Take a look at the optics tab of the NEX-5 review on Imaging Resource: at wide angle, only the very centre of the image is sharp. Across most of the frame (especially the corners of course), softness and chromatic aberration are appalling. Interestingly, one of the rationales of the original 4/3rds system was superior optical performance, by doing exactly the opposite of what Sony is doing with NEX: combining a relatively small sensor (by DSLR standards) with a relatively long registration distance (for the size of the sensor). As is borne out by the reviews of Olympus and Panasonic 4/3rds lenses, this has certainly proven to be the case, but the market is more concerned with noise performance (where larger sensors have an advantage) than optical quality it seems.<br>

Micro 4/3rds is to some degree a response by Olympus and Panasonic to what the market wants, by compromising 4/3rds' optical quality to give consumers the other thing they want in a camera: small size. However, Micro 4/3rds only seems to compromise the optics significantly in areas that can fairly easily be corrected in software (although personally I still prefer to have correct optical performance without software correction). NEX, however, is clearly way beyond that.</p>

<p >But Sony is giving the market what they want: a big sensor in the smallest possible camera. Personally, I think this results in an absurdly unbalanced and awkward package when you stick a lens on it: the laws of physics still require an equivalent APS-C lens to be bigger than a 4/3rds lens, even if the former has a slightly shorter registration distance...</p>

<p>.</p>

<p><em>"...the new 4/3 options out there. .."</em></p>

<p>What does "4/3" mean other than a ratio of two numbers? Certainly not Canon EOS related, or if it is, please forgive me. If 4/3 represents a sensor smaller than the already small APS-C sensor, then, like<strong> the wise and inimitable Dan Sout</strong>h, I have to ask why? But since this is<strong> the</strong> EOS forum, Dan gave all the correct answers already.</p>

<p>Or, is Canon set to offer a 4/3 thing in their DSLR line this year? (I doubt it, but am open to correction) If you think an EOS 7D is bulky then SLRs aren't your bag.</p>

<p>Ken and Dan 4/3 is the aspect ratio - the sensor has options but is 4x3 not the traditional 3x2 (although this is a 4/3 option). In terms of quality 4/3 is not that bad - don't take my word for it Amateur Photographer (the respect UK weekly magazine - published for 125 years) compared the G1 (Micro 4/3), Nikon D300 and Nikon D3. All of these cameras are 12 mega pixel and the G1 did (surprisingly) well - at low ISO in good light the image quality was evidently almost indistinguishable from the D3. Obviously DOF differed and at higher ISO or lower light the D3 killed the G1.<br>

Personally I bought the G1 to use top quality FD glass on a digital body and was very happy with the results. As an alternative to a Compact camera they make a lot of sense - especially the newr smaller models. As an alternative to a consumer DSLR they also make a lot of sense. Currently as I said earlier the lens range and performance of the camera do not make it an alternative to a mid level (e.g 7D) or higher DSLR.<br>

They are smaller - here is a shot of the kids old Rebel with a 35-70mm lens and the G1 with it's 14-45 (effective 28-90) kit lens.</p><div></div>

<p>Mirrorless is not limited to 4/3. You could also build a system based on APS-C or full frame sensors. And if there is a real advantage to have an electronic viewfinder this will happen and you will be able to purchase those cameras from all big camera makers including Canon. However, right now the situation is not that clear. Each system has its advantages and problems. Besides the size for me the optical viewfinder still has more advantages than disadvantages.</p>

<p>Philip, I think that micro 4/3 defines more than just the aspect ratio. I have a (non-photographer) friend who uses a Sony point-and-shoot, and that camera also has a 4x3 aspect ratio. But it's not a "<em>micro four-thirds</em>" camera.</p>

<p>I don't know the details of the micro 4/3 standards, but from observation I gather that they use no reflex mirror and no pentaprism. There's also no through-the-lens optical viewfinder. Instead, the user monitors a real-time, live-view feed from the sensor either on the LCD screen or optionally via an electronic viewfinder.</p>

<p>I'm certain that these cameras give beautiful results in great light, but then so does my friend's point-and-shoot. But these cameras are far too limiting for my needs in all of the ways that I have detailed above and others such as autofocus options and performance. It's not that they're bad cameras. I would never suggest that. But the original poster asked why we should invest money on lenses for DSLRs and suggested that the DSLR design is bound for the scrap heap. I countered with all of the reasons why I believe that DSLRs are superior to minicams.</p>

<p>If you own or are thinking about buying a DSLR because you want slightly better camera than the better point-and-shoots, a micro 4/3 camera might be a good option for you. But if you use half of the features of a DSLR, micro 4/3 is going to be very restrictive. It might be useful in some cases, but there will be other times when nothing less than a full-featured camera will do.</p>

<p>Dan if you read my (much) earlier post you will see that I would not move exclusively to 4/3 - Indeed I still shoot film and MF bodies. My point was simply that for many people 4/3 may fill a need - either as a compact body that is better than something like a G11 (and the Micro 4/3 cameras are much better) or if they don't need all of the features of a full size DSLR. I personally own three Canon full size DSLRs (5DII, 7D and 1DIIN) plus 4 other EOS bodies (1Vs, 1NRS, 3) and have 6 L series lenses and 5 other EF mount lenses.<br>

The origin of the 4/3 system is an Olympus and Kodak standard that others have joined. Micro 4/3 was a spin off from that. Ken asked what does 4/3 mean and it is the aspect ratio of the sensor. In terms of the 4/3 organization and the open standards they have defined then there is obviously much more. <br>

Dan I would not compare m4/3 to a compact camera. They are much better than a compact camera - since they use the same sensor and processing technology as Olympus and Panasonic DSLRs. I personally find that the G1 outperforms the kid's old Rebel (300D) in every aspect and has as more features. While the G1 AF is contrast detection based it is much faster than the contrast detection system on my 7D (in live view) and performs at least as well as the phase detection system in the old Rebel.<br>

If you read my earlier post you will see that I agree with your main issue with m4/3 which is lens availability and the ability to use studio flash but I think you are too daming of a system that you have perhaps not used. There are very few features the body lacks and I wonder if you would care to list them as the bodies have most of the features that a more casual user would want. <br>

Compared to the 5DII the main feature differences are:<br>

Slower frame rate 3.9 vs 3 fps<br>

30 - 1/8000 vs 60 - 1/4000 shutter speed<br>

No external flash connection (beyond the hotshoe)<br>

1/200 vs 1/160 flash synch<br>

ISO 50 - 25600 vs ISO 100 - 3200<br>

Bracketing +/- 2EV 1/3 and 1/2 EV steps for 3 shots vs +/- 2EV in 1/3 or 2/3 EV steps for 3, 5 or 7 shots<br>

Video no video<br>

external flash only vs built in flash<br>

3" 921K pixel screen vs pivoted 3" 460K pixel screen</p>

<p>In terms of the other features that are important - metering and exposure setting<br>

the two cameras are very similar. The G1 has an exposure setting called intelligent auto which in my experience produces better results than Canon's auto everything programs.<br>

I noticed that DXO mark scores the GH1 sensor slightly higher than the EOS 40D.<br>

And Popular photography scored it higher resolution and lower noise (at ISO 400 and below) thans the EOS 40D.<br>

While I understand it may not meet your needs if you shoot sports, low light or studio the cameras are not bad.</p>

<p>While the lens problem is significant they work very well with old MF lenses although wide angle is a big issue as your lenses are 2x their focal length. If you are prepared to shoot in manual focus the EVF is great as you can zoom in twice while the camera is at your eye and get very sharp focus. Here is a shot from the G1 and a crop to show how detailed it can be.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Here is the Crop - note: both images are compressed as the Crop was 870 pixels wide and has been compressed to 700 wide and quality level 74%</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks guys. I think I will stick to my 40D and thinking of getting the 7D instead of the 550D because I want the HD movie capabilities. this is a discussion for another thread.<br>

BTW Paul, as I mentioned before, Sony has lost my attention a million years ago. In the sandbox of electronic corporations they play the reach, spoiled bully with a serious case of ADHD...-)<br>

Micha</p>

<p>The 4/3 sensor is about 30% smaller than the Canon 1.6 crop sensor and about 75% smaller than full frame. Sensor size is a critical component of image quality. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Dan I would not compare m4/3 to a compact camera. They are much better than a compact camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed. They are better than compact cameras. I acknowledged this in my last post. Now instead of someone buying a bulky Rebel or D5000 to get better-than-compact performance they can buy a sleek, lightweight m4/3 camera. Of course, it's going to COST just as much as the Rebel/D5000, but it will be more portable and the picture quality should be equivalent given that the same calibre of lens is used.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>They use the same sensor and processing technology as Olympus and Panasonic DSLRs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Gee, the next time I'm at a sporting event I'll have to take note of how many Olympus and Panasonic DSLRs are in use by the sideline pros. Oh, wait, I already know the answer. <strong>ZERO!</strong></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>While the G1 AF is contrast detection based it is much faster than the contrast detection system on my 7D (in live view) and performs at least as well as the phase detection system in the old Rebel.<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Great! I'm glad that the AF works for you. Does it have predictive autofocus like a D3/D700 or a 1DmkIV? That panda doesn't look as though he's moving very fast.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you read my earlier post you will see that I agree with your main issue with m4/3 which is lens availability and the ability to use studio flash</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm glad that we agree. Those are big consideration in my opinion. Especially the LENSES.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> but I think you are too daming </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I used to do quite a lot of "daming" but I have since settled down to one dame.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> of a system that you have perhaps not used. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>With good reason. Please see above.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>There are very few features the body lacks and I wonder if you would care to list them</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I believe that I already have listed them quite clearly.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> as the bodies have most of the features that a more casual user would want.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The casual user is not my concern. Most of them use iPhones these days. I use what I need. Are there times when a m4/3 camera would come in handy? Certainly! But why should I spend $$ on the body, a couple of lenses, and SD memory cards when I could, for instance, upgrade to a new 70-200 f/2.8 for about the same investment? I don't mind carrying a 5DII or a D700 around, and those bodies do what I need them to do. If I get a back injury maybe I'll jump onto the m4/3 bandwagon in order to save weight and bulk, but for now it makes absolutely no sense to do so.</p>

<p>Enjoy your m4/3 cameras. I'm sure that they do what they can do quite nicely. In the meantime, I'm going to enjoy my "bulky" cameras along with their fast lenses, their specialized lenses (e.g., macro and tilt/shit), their compatible extension tubes and filter systems, their multiple simultaneous flash heads, their ultra-high write speeds, their advanced autofocus and bracketing systems, etc.</p>

 

<p>Dan - if you read my earlier post you would notice that I made most of the points you seem to be objecting too. My earlier post stated<br>

I have had a G1 for about 18 months and it is quite a good little camera. Can it replace my Canon DSLRs - NO and here is why<br>

1 AF is slow and useless for fast action e.g. sports<br /> 2 Quality above ISO 400 is very poor<br /> 3 Limited lens selection<br /> 4 While the EVF is usable it cannot compare to an optical viewfinder for subtle work<br /> 5 Feature set rather limited (flash / lighting support, frame rate, bracketing etc...)<br /> 6 Build quality is OK but would not survive hard use<br /> 7 Only way to get good bokeh and shallow DOF is with exotic glass (e.g. Canon FD 85 F1.2 at F1.2)<br /> 8 Low light shooting (even at low ISO) produces rather poor, noisy images - I was informed this was due to the small sensor getting hot</p>

<p>Unlike you I was trying to take a balanced view as opposed to a purely personal view. Personally I currently shoot with a 7D, 5DII and 1DIIN (all of which are rather bulky but two of which are great for sports). Prior to that the list includes 1V, 1NRS, 1N, T90 New F1 etc.... As for lenses I own and use lenses from the (Sigma) 8mm F3.5 fisheye through to the 300 F4 IS including the three f2.8 zooms and a TS lens. I also carry around cameras as large as the Fuji GX680 which makes a DSLR look like a toy.<br>

I am not sure why yopu appear to want to attack me personally for what I believe is a balanced assessment of this new type of camera body. You have not tried it so you cannot compare it to a 5D II or 1D body (since I own all three I can do this). These mirrorless bodies are a useful innovation (you will find them discussed a lot on the Canon FD and Olympus forums as a way to use old lenses) and I understand that mirrorless interchangable lens cameras have already reached over 10% market share in Japan. Thus there are probably here to stay. They clearly cannot replace a 1D with a 300 F2.8 for professional sports use but this is not what most users want. Canon has sold 40M EOS bodies but I suspect that only a small percentage were 1 series bodies. I bought the G1 to use these on a digital body.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>I am not sure why yopu appear to want to attack me personally</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Whoa, dude! I never "attacked" you or any other person. I never "attacked" m4/3 cameras for that matter; I just said that they didn't have all of the features of a DSLR, a point with which you seem to agree.</p>

<p>Is you opinion on these cameras so vitally important to you that if someone disagrees with your conclusions, you interpret that as an attack on your person? It's just a freakin' camera; some people will love it and some will have no use for it. The fact that I have no use for one should not be an affront to you or any other m4/3 user. I don't use Microsoft Windows PC's, either. It doesn't mean that they're bad or that there's something wrong with the people who use them. Different people have different preferences. That's all.</p>

<p>Statements like these appear to be taking a derogatory and condescending tone</p>

<p><em>Gee, the next time I'm at a sporting event I'll have to take note of how many Olympus and Panasonic DSLRs are in use by the sideline pros</em><br>

<em>Great! I'm glad that the AF works for you</em><br>

<em>Enjoy your m4/3 cameras. I'm sure that they do what they can do quite nicely. In the meantime, I'm going to enjoy my "bulky" cameras along with their fast lenses, their specialized lenses</em><br>

I spent 30 days on the Whistler ski courses for the Olympics in February (actually on the course) and thus I may have some idea about shooting sports<br>

If you had ready my posts you will see that I was aware of the M4/3 AF and pointed them out before you did (having used the camera helps in assessing it's AF!) <br>

I suspect I have a collection of bulky cameras that more than rival yours (Including five 1 series bodies, 3 fuji GX680 bodies and two Mamiya MF bodies) I also own over 40 lenses from 8mm to 400mm.</p>

<p>Your response would suggest that you did not mean to give offense but even here the tone is derogatory.</p>

<p> </p>