Is FourThirds system for me?

<p>I have been researching this system for just a short time. So I really don't know a lot about it yet. But it has peaked my interest lately. So I would like to pose a question in hopes of getting a few responses from those of you who are much more knowledgable than myself.<br>

I currently shoot with a Canon Digital Rebel DSLR and a Panasonic FZ30. I'm resonable happy with both. But here are my questions. 1) Why would someone like me be interested in going the FourThirds route? 2) What would I be gaining over my current gear ensemble? </p>

<p>I will continue to search for more info, but would like to hear your answers to my two precise questions.</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

<p>A1) I don't know. Why are you interested in another camera system?<br>

A2) Like the first question, what are you finding deficient about your current cameras? </p>

<p>It's impossible to answer either of these questions, precise though they be. Given that you already have two good cameras but not knowing what kind of photography you want to do, what issues you are running into, what deficiencies you are trying to overcome, there's really nothing further to be said that does not fall into an abyss of dogmatic and theoretical debate. </p>

<p>The vast majority of people hardly take advantage of half of what the camera they already own can do. Yet they are driven to buy new cameras and other equipment by peer and marketing pressure. </p>

<p>Better to keep in mind that <em>"Equipment often gets in the way of photography."</em></p>

<p>In your 'search for more info' maybe have a quick look at this series of articles. I gained from this gentleman's approach.<br>

http://www.wrotniak.com/photo/43/index.html</p>

<p>Without knowing what you shoot (casual snap shots? sports? landscapes? nature?), no one could answer any of your question without going into pointless techy talk.</p>

<p>Actually, if you shoot mostly the parenthetic things above, changing system will virtually make no difference.</p>

<p>If you are looking for lens economy you are not going to find it with Four Thirds, unless you also own a box full of Minolta MD or Canon FD lenses (manual focus) that you plan on using. Although I would suspect that the lower tier Olympus lenses are better optically than the bottom level EOS lenses, many of which are pretty awful (IMO).</p>

<p>If you are looking for a smaller camera with interchangeable lenses, then the Olympus e420 and e620 series cameras are a little bit smaller than a Rebel, as are the Panasonic G1/GH1 and the Olympus EP1, but other cameras in the system are as big or larger.</p>

<p>If you are looking for more compact lenses, but you don't normally shoot anything longer than a normal lens then you aren't going to find them with Four Thirds. Four Thirds wide angle lenses speifically are not very compact. However, if you shoot long telephoto lenses, then Four Thirds offers lenses smaller than their Canon Rebel equivalents and MUCH smaller than their full-frame Canon equivalents.</p>

<p>If you are looking for high speed lenses, again it's a mixed bag. In the telephoto range, Olympus offers lenses faster than Nikon or Canon in equivalent focal lengths for much of the range. In the normal and wide-angle department, the fast lens choices are lack-luster at best.</p>

<p>If you like shooting in absolute blackness, then the Live View mode of Four Thirds cameras is a boon, while noise may be an issue, although I would bet that your Canon Rebel doesn't handle noise all that well anyway.</p>

<p>If you are simply looking to upgrade your aging cameras for something with higher resolution, better noise reduction, better color rendering, and overall better build, then just about anything from any manufacturer is going to meet that qualification. A newer Canon Rebel body or upgrading to a used but better mid-range Canon body like the 30D will be a cheaper upgrade since you can keep your existing lenses, but if you only have the kit-lens then you will be looking at investing in a lens line no matter where the dice land.</p>

<p>Your comments are interesting----so far, even though only one really tries to shed some light on my questions. Let me restate here. Why are you the proud users of the FourThirds system instead of going some other non-FourThirds solution? I'm just trying to find out why current users of this system have chosen it over a more conventional DSLR APS-C sensor camera. What attracted you enough to make the actual investment? <br>

And one more thing. What difference would it actually make just what I intend shooting? Are there some subjects that show the 4-3rds system to be really advantageous? That's the kind of answers I'm looking for.<br>

I'm much more curious at this point; and not ready to run off to my nearest camera store to make a FourThirds system buy, and to sell my current gear. Not close.<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>Well, I've never been proud of any cameras or lenses that I have been using. They are nothing more than tools. For example, I had used Nikon D2H, the highest grade in Nikon DSLR lineup at one time and then switched to D40, the lowest grade Nikon, but I never thought it was a "downgrade". I just chose what was more appropriate for my needs.</p>

<p>Now I use Panasonic G1 because it was the only camera (when I purchased it) that was completely free from the negative aspects of legacy DSLRs (tiny viewfinder, difficulty of manual focus, discrepancy between the lens I want to use and the function of the camera I can utilize with the lens, bulk and so on) which I had been tired of.</p>

<p>So, rather than suffering from the limited choice of current genuine lens lineup, I'm very happy with excellent EFV (you can monitor the entire 100% field-of-view along with different information even through my glasses, and manual focusing is far more comfortable than any current DSLRs with optical pentaprism or pentamirror finders), the quality of the kit lens, easiness of carrying around, articulating LCD and comfort of using older MF lenses via various adaptors.</p>

<p><em>> Why are you the proud users of the FourThirds system instead<br /> > of going some other non-FourThirds solution? I'm just trying to<br /> > find out why current users of this system have chosen it over a<br /> > more conventional DSLR APS-C sensor camera. What attracted you<br /> > enough to make the actual investment?</em><br /> <br /> What makes you think that there's something "proud" about owning a particular class or brand of equipment? You're talking about a camera, not an award or honor. You like it, you pay for it, it's yours. Nothing to be "proud" about. <br /> <br /> Why did I buy what I use now? <br /> <br /> Well, I liked the Olympus E-1 in 2004 when I was looking for something to replace the Canon 10D I wasn't particularly fond of. I didn't buy it then, I went with Pentax which was the right choice at the time for me. Three years later, I purchased a Panasonic L1 because a) the lens was reputed to be stellar, b) I knew Olympus produced excellent lenses that would also work on the L1, c) the price was less than half what the camera went for originally, d) I was intrigued by the L1 camera's design. Turned out to be an excellent camera for me. I later filled out the lens kit for it (and have not been disappointed), bought the E-1 body I'd liked in 2004 for very little (and find it is still a superb piece of equipment), and have added the G1 to my kit. <br /> <br /> I like the FourThirds format, I like the lenses available for it, I like the bodies I've acquired, and I like the way the system I've put together has complementary, cross-functional usability. I like the FoV-DoF coupling of FourThirds format, and prefer the more square format proportions: it produces excellent work for my photography. I like the way the system is designed and the support I've gotten from both Olympus and Panasonic when required. <br /> <br /> <em>> And one more thing. What difference would it actually make just<br /> > what I intend shooting? Are there some subjects that show the<br /> > 4-3rds system to be really advantageous?</em><br /> <br /> Every camera system has its strengths and weaknesses. Some, for instance Canon, have a big strength in terms of pro-quality long lenses and a range of different choices in format and features. Others, for instance Pentax, have a big strength in terms of superlative, fast high-end prime lenses in the wide to medium telephoto range. Others, for instance Nikon and Olympus, have a great Professional Services organization for working pros. <br /> <br /> FourThirds (aka Olympus and Panasonic as the principle vendors) has its strengths and weaknesses, which might make it more or less advantageous depending upon what you intend to do with your photography and by comparison to the equipment you already have. That's why the question is significant. <br /> <br /> The FourThirds system has a broad range of excellent lenses in three grades ... standard, high end, super high end. Olympus and Panasonic/Leica have both produced excellent performing lenses and a range of very good bodies. The new micro-FourThirds derivative standard adds to the system with three new, more compact bodies which have additional characteristics and features that complement the SLR line. The micro-FourThirds standard allows a huge increase in lens adaptability for those who like to use more than just the standard lens offerings. <br /> <br /> So ... what kind of photography do you want to do, and what kind of issues are you having with your current Canon body, lenses, and FZ30 kit? With that information there is something to address in answering your "precise" questions. <br /> <br /> Or do you just want some fanboy pap as to why I <strong><em>LOVE</em></strong> Olympus and why <strong><em>EVERYONE</em></strong> else should too? <strong>Yuck</strong>.</p>

<p>When I first went to purchase an entry level DSLR, Olympus wasn't anywhere on my list of candidates. <br /><br />When I picked it up out of curiosity I was very impressed with its tactile feel and the quality of the kit lenses vis-a-vis the feel of the competitors' kit lenses. That was for an E500. The dust reduction system, which I believe was unique to Olympus at the time, sealed the deal for me.</p>

<p>Since then I've traded in the E500 for a 520 with In Body IS which I find works remarkably well. It isn't a panacea but I don't think any IS system is intended to be. I very much appreciate the flexibility it offers to use a variety of lenses 'stabilized" whether dedicated Zuiko or others.</p>

<p>In the interim I've purchased the 50mm 2.0 and the 12-60 2.8 and find both of them remarkable in their own ways.</p>

<p>The 70-300mm also performs nicely.</p>

<p>In the end, I surprised myself when I bought the first one but I've never had cause to regret it. Although I had not specifically researched their cameras I did know enough of Olympus' history and of the quality of their scientific/medical products to not have any qualms about quality. </p>

<p> So far that's been borne out nicely.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you are satisfied (reasonably that is,hey,how nice) with your current equipment, it seems then a kind of a pie in the sky question.<br>

Why did Sam's boy Harlan join Marine Corps over Navy or Air Force ,which are much more <strong><em>conventional. </em> </strong> Easy. " Semper Fi" naturally.. Olympus is more than a brand. It is a way of life. There is a secret handshake, comraderie in this forum...</p>

<p>Dr Wrotniak, PHD physicist, did your homework already.( see my link again ). Check out same and get smarter if you seek relevant information vs chit chat blather about pride of ownership. Like TV ads for a drug X, ask your <strong>doctor</strong> : " Dear Doctor Wrotniak, Is 4/3 <strong>right</strong> for <strong>me</strong> ?<br>

( 4/3 niks are still seen as renegades, Godfrey, I am a' thinking. )</p>

<p>First, I really do appreciate your responses to my question. Yet, but the tone of some of the replies, I'm still not sure that my intent in asking them has been fully understood. So I'll try again. Why is one attracted to the FourThirds system as their main equipment used for their digital photography over the more "standard" (I'll bet I hear it for using that word) DSLR (ie Nikon, Canon, etc) systems? <br>

I'm not at all ready to jump to this newer 4/3rds concept unless there would really be something that made MY photography improve by doing so.<br>

And, though I still feel it an unnecessary bit of info in getting responses to my questions, my main photographic subjects are(In priority): nature/wildlife, grand kids sports(indoors and out), travel, and generally everything else worthy of one interested in capturing, well, everything else. By insisting that this concern be addressed, does FourThirds have certain elements and/or subjects for which it excells where the "standard" DSLRs fall short? Therein may well be the answer to my question in the first place.<br>

I'm in no way wanting to start any argument or tension here. I'm simply curious as to the usefullness of the "newer" digital photographic system. </p>

<p>Again thanks to all.<br>

Bob</p>

<p>[[i'm not at all ready to jump to this newer 4/3rds concept unless there would really be something that made MY photography improve by doing so.]]</p>

<p>How in the world will anyone other than you be able to answer this question?</p>

<p>If you can't use any camera system to capture the photographs you want, then the problem is you, not the equipment.</p>

<p>Robert, I'm afraid you seem to be making your question more and more difficult to answer. I think that nature/wildlife, sports, travel and everything else in general are too difficult to cover with one camera, regardless of the format.</p>

<p>Having said that, I would think that the advantage of 4/3 system really shines only when you need long (and relatively fast) lenses (i.e. wildlife and sports), because of the 2x crop factor. Otherwise I don't see any decisive advantage of 4/3 over DSLRs of DX (APS-C) format. Micro 4/3 system uses essentially the same sensor as 4/3, but this is whole another story.</p>

<p>Brand loyalty can be costly, I'm finding. I've used both the Pen SLRs and the OM systems for many years and, given that each has some drawbacks, I still liked them well enough that, by the time I wanted to buy a DSLR, I stuck with Olympus. After considerable use of the E-500 and the couple of lenses that came with the body, I've found it seriously lacking in the ability to auto-focus on any kind of sports or any other action. I've been through numerous settings, messed with higher ISO settings and the like and it simply won't focus properly. Most of the time the lens seems to continuously hunt for a focus, and most of the time the shutter won't even fire. And if it finally does fire, better than 90 percent of the time (I've actually calculated this) the image is not even close to being in focus. It doesn't help that the "burst" of continuous shooting won't work except on the "sport" setting, and even then the auto-focus is so screwy that the shutter won't actuate anyway. Manual-focusing is out of the question: You have to twist and twist and twist some more just to get very small changes in the focus; again, worthless for shooting sports action.</p>

<p>I've also been through two Olympus FL-36 flashes, each of which broke about a month after the warranty expired and, therefore, Olympus won't honor. They did offer to fix them, though, which would only have cost (including shipping both ways) what it would cost to buy new flashes.</p>

<p>I have used Canon DSLRs (which didn't belong to me but rather to my employer for a brief period) on some jobs and they worked terrifically well -- fast auto-focus and great image stabilization. (These were not the Rebel models, by the way, which use different lenses than those I used.) They cost a heck of a lot more than Olympus, even more than Olympus' E-3 and the supposedly faster-focusing Zuiko SWD lenses, but I can tell you that my money is going into Canon now.</p>

<p>I can't speak to your unhappiness with the Canon; maybe there are real issues and maybe you're just suffering from gear-acquisition syndrome.</p>

<p>You had a bad experience ,Daniel. That is life. Here is a quote from a smart professional sports photographer on dpreview.com's Olympus SLR forum:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Not a lot of time and perhaps incentive to post; I know I'm on a good thing and find no point in constantly trying to defend what simply performs. I've now been covering sports for my newspaper for six years, using Olympus gear, and no complaints, in fact, quite the opposite. The bodies are a lot better and the lenses have always been the best. Cheers, Ray"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>( OzRay, Melbourne pro photojournalist, who has published his sports shots on line for samples)</p>

<p>Robert, I am saying (perhaps bit too sarcastically) that you gonna get all kinds of answers to such straightforward sounding questions. I believe that if I got an equivalent lens and body combination with the Canon name, I could learn to do whatever I wanted with practice. I do have a leaning to the 4/3 aspect ratio, always preferred more square to compose with..but I lived well enough with 2:3 for years and with Canons.<br>

I encourage you to stay with what is reasonably satisfying to you now. There are pros and cons to all brands as we all know.What appeals to whom? Brand loyalty makes a kind of sense, probability- wise. Wrotniak writes that <strong>all</strong> companies make compromises. He says that he appreciates the way Olympus takes its compromises (that is hard to illustrate in less than an essay).<br /> When a new camera, like this Olympus PEN EP-1 is introduced, you will already find some who say 'no optical finder,no way' and others who say 'just what I have been waiting for, small light and adaptable to a variety of lenses). For image stabilization, Olympus chose body stabilizaton. Canon uses lens stabilization. Olympus has few prime lenses and Canon has gobs of them. Take your choice. Nikon has its own quality features and a huge accessory system. Olympus is still growing in the accessory department. Such as macro and micro photography... It is simple or a befuddling as you like.<br /> Not a profoundly satisfying answer,agreed, but it is as honest as one can muster. Now, the only question left is- can one accept such a proposition? Or better yet, can you get hold of the brand to see how it works in your hands.</p>

<p>Robert, </p>

<p>There's no point to making further responses to your query. As others have suggested, you're looking for something that only you can provide for yourself: a way to decide whether one brand suits you better than another. You've basically said, "I want to shoot anything and everything." Which is the same as saying nothing. </p>

<p>Study the lens offerings, check out the bodies, from all "the standard brands" and compare them to Olympus' offerings. See how you like them. If you like them, act accordingly. </p>

<p>Well, this has indeed shaped up to me more of a discussion, argument, rant then I had originally intended. Godfrey....for heavens sake "chill out". <br>

To respond to a couple of the comments made since my last entry here.<br>

Akira..You said "really shines when you need...long...wildlife and sports...because of 2X crop sensor". This is precisely the kind of comment that I'm looking for. This would certainly maximize my use of longer zooms allowing for a longer reach. Great for both wildlife and sports, both of which are on top of my list. You helped answer my question as stated. Thanks</p>

<p>Daniel...I'm now where near "suffering from gear-acquisition syndrome". How in the world did you ever get that from the questions that I asked? In fact to be perfectly honest, I'm less into gear, and more into actual photography, than ever before. Though I must admit to having experienced G-AS in the past.</p>

<p>Gerry...Thanks for mentioning the different aspect ratios. If that would be a serious concern to me, I personally prefer the 2:3 to this 4:3. But that's me. Yours was a helpful remark for me.</p>

<p>Godfrey...Yes, I do want to shoot anything and everything. Don't you? There are things that I actively seek out, but if an impromtu subject happens by, and the gear is in hand, I'm certainly going for it the best that I can. I'm certainly not going to pass up(for example) an interesting piece of architecture becasue I "only" use my gear for my "favorite" wildlife and sports shots. If you were having trouble understanding my question(s), that's how I was understanding you comments. </p>

<p>Now...to keep this from getting all flamed up, I'd like to quietly end this post right here and now. I did get some helpful info from a few of you. Thank you. </p>

<p>Poor old Robert, his perfectly reasonable question seems to have brought down on him some somewhat superior (if I may say) ire from others. His question is rather akin to "why should I be interested in the Leica M system - or what is the big deal about medium format photography?" I think he is intrigued to hear why you have plumped for this (I hesitate to set the cat amongst the pigeons) "unusual" format compared to most of the rest of Photonetters who are on APS-C or FF 35mm. He is wondering whether he missing something.</p>

<p>I don't have any 4/3 equipment but I suppose what you gain is small size and increased depth of field (both a blessing and a curse). The small sensor also allows faster lenses for a given size compared to the larger sensors. The current adapters also make it easy to use other manufacturers' legacy lenses on these cameras too. Whether the Olympus and Panasonic have actually accomplished all these things, I'm not sure, but I assume that is, essentially, the idea behind it?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I wasn't asserting that you are suffering from GAS; I was just asking the question because I sometimes have to ask that of myself before I buy something. Do I really <em>need</em> it for what I want to do, or do I just <em>want</em> more stuff? It's a huge commitment of time and especially money to invest in a photo system; even more so if you already are heavily invested in one system and are going to switch to another.</p>

<p>I bought Olympus' E-500 with the two-lens kit plus two FL-36 flashes, the flash bracket and that connector that ties the flash to the camera body. That's probably around $1,100. I'm not even going to bother trying to sell the Olympus stuff because I've seen the very low prices that the E-system equipment is bringing on the used market and because I still can use it for my personal, family photos. It just isn't up to snuff as professional gear. The lenses are really sharp, though.</p>

<p>I don't know your situation except from what you stated, and, given that, I can't see why you would want or need to make a change; certainly not for the Olympus E-system. But in the end, it will be up to you. To summarize, I doubt there's anything Olympus offers that you can't already do with what you have or by adding to your Canon stuff.</p>

<p>To Gerry Siegel, I've sometimes wondered if my camera wasn't working to spec, but I could never find out the answer because Olympus asserted, without even accepting the camera for service, that there was nothing wrong with it.</p>

<p>As to the other photographer's experience with Olympus: I'm truly happy for him that the equipment is working out. I know no one else who has any Olympus DSLR gear with whom to compare notes and, in the end, I can only pass along my own experience.</p>

<p>Hi Daniel,</p>

<p>As I said, I was a GAS-o-holic in my past. I seem to have conquered this, and do not care, at least not as intently, about getting "new" gear. And I need to agree with you that what I currently have and use is more than enough equipment for my (growing, hopefully) skills as a photographer. <br>

It was simply that the FourThirds system seem to be getting more press of late, and I was wondering why. I now see that it's nothing of earthshattering significance; at least to me and for my needs it's not.<br>

So...mission accomplished. And when all has been said and done, I've got the answers that I sought. Thanks all.</p>

<p>Robert, <br /><br /> <em>... Godfrey...Yes, I do want to shoot anything and everything. Don't you? There are things that I actively seek out, but if an impromtu subject happens by, and the gear is in hand, I'm certainly going for it the best that I can. I'm certainly not going to pass up(for example) an interesting piece of architecture becasue I "only" use my gear for my "favorite" wildlife and sports shots. If you were having trouble understanding my question(s), that's how I was understanding you comments.</em> <br /><br /> No, I don't want to shoot "everything and anything" at least not all at one time. I go out to take pictures with specific ideas in mind, carry the equipment I expect to need for that shooting project. If an interesting subject happens along while I'm shooting otherwise, if it doesn't break my train of thought, I work with what I have with me to capture it. Sometimes I just ignore it as it isn't what I'm out in the field to do. <br /><br /> There is no "best system" in an absolute sense, nor is there some mythical "standard APS-C" system against which the "FourThirds" system is some radical departure. <br /><br /> I make a decision to buy equipment based on whether it will do the specific things I have in mind to do with it. If all I have in mind is "general purpose photography and snapshooting", then <strong>all</strong> the currently available systems will do the job equally well ... I pick the one that fits my budget and is the most pleasing to me for aesthetic reasons. <br /><br /> Is this such a difficult concept to understand? Asking "Why should I choose this?" in a vacuum is simply you asking someone to try to persuade you or market their favorite brand to you. Do your own research and understand what you're considering, then ask questions that make sense about what you don't understand.</p>

<p>Robert,- I'll call you Bob. Bob ,I don't think anyone intended to dump on you for asking what is for the Olympus 4/3 user, a fairly open ended question at the outset ,May even come across to some of us like what we used to get a bunch of -went like this :</p>

<p>" What is so special that you didn't go for what most of us folks choose, a high spec well proven Canon or Nikon with a legacy of lens user base to support?--or /and : " Olympus offers too little, too late in the digital arena, it is a loser and a sorrry end for the ghost of Dr Maitani's innovative small is beautiful scheme? " plus: " Where is the small and light stuff we expected?" Some justification in the beginning.<br>

That kind of scorn that gear folk piled on here just a few yrs ago maybe slightly stiffened reaction to questions about the WHY of Olympus as a product <strong>choice</strong> perhaps. A hunch. Got some flame activity going as you can imagine,which is never not an amsement on line. ( Yesp you guessed it there are a few who <strong>still </strong> predict the demise of the Olympus camera division. Or a contraction. And delays don't help in this instant gratification world of expectation of a superior model every 6 months.)</p>

<p>Pleased you got a feel for some of the attractions as far as words can convey. We have bet on our choice, so I like to think it is a wise choice... One more item, to put a small weight to Canon and Nikon on the balance scale: It takes a while for aftermarket manufacturers to develop accessories for the Olympus 4/3 market. A little while anyway. (E.g, Really Right Stuff for tripod plates; Tamron and Sigma the big third party lens makers- only Sigma has joined the party so far; Quantum flash took about a year to come up with a TTL shoe for their wedding flashguns to fit Olympus electronics. But the did and renewed interest may spark renewed accessory interest. )<br /> Aloha Bob. I wish you well. gs</p>

<p>Robert,</p>

<p>I may be able to answer some of your questions even though I don't own any Olympus systems. I am a Nikon shooter but tired of the bulk and weight of its DSLRs, and I was thus looking for an alternative. Olympus uses a 3/4 system and its sensor is smaller. As a result, their cameras and the lenses can be made smaller. The 3/4 system has a 2x crop factor so this makes it a bette system when telephoto lenses are needed. The trade offs are (in my opinion): slightly worse low ISO performance (b/c of the smaller sensor), although one may argue that this is somewhat offset by the in-body image stabilization, lack of small inexpensive fast prime wide angle lens (b/c of the crop factor), and difficulty in getting good bokeh (well, b/c of the crop factor, so to speak). Finally, while it is true that 3/4 cameras are among the smallest, some of its good lenses are by no means small and inexpensive, as promised, and because of this I finally bought a Panasonic G1 instead. </p>

<p>So you may ask what is the G1 then? Well it is one of the "micro"-3/4 system ... I think you asked a very complex question because there are so many camera systems out there and each has its pros and cons. You really need to use the Canon first to see if you really like it and when the tool becomes limiting, you can then begin to search for alternatives to address the specfic problems that you find. While it is useful to ask a broad question here, the best way is to just read as much as you can about each system to learn your ways through. People are not always be able to easily answer what appears to be a simple question because many have spent many many years in asking themselves the same question. It took me months to finally come to the conclusion of getting the G1 but this may not be where it will end.</p>

<p>Though I've sort of tried to end this post, I'm glad you didn't do it. I'm slowly getting the answers to my questions. I'm sorry if my question was mis-asked as far as trying to get the answers that I was looking for. My fault. Basically, I was wanting to know what features(of FourThirds) attacted you to this system enough for you to invest in it.<br>

Well, so far, here's what I've found. It offers a 2X sensor favoring tele needs. Most bodies(at least the more recent ones) offer built in Image Stabilization. The units are smaller and maybe even lighter(but that's not always the case). The Olympus lenses are reputted to be very good. <br>

Of these 4 features, none of them are really driving me to invest in a FourThirds system over my present Canon gear. Two of my 3 lenses are IS lenses. A 2X sensor over my current 1.6X is not a significant step up(to me). The size and weight issues are not that different. And my Canon lenses, though not of the "L" quality, are the best I can afford. <br>

My quest was to try and find reasons why you folks went to the 4/3rds system over what you had previously. I had done minimal research on this system, and really could find nothing there that would drive me to this system. Your comments confirm that finding. I'm in no way putting the 4/3rds system down. Not at all. If I were just starting to get into digital SLR photo gear, I would have most assuredly given this system VERY serious thought. But such is not the case.<br>

So that's where I stand at present; and intend on staying where I am--thanks to you.<br>

Again, many thanks to ALL for your comments.<br>

Bob</p>