Is this the time to leave Micro 4/3?

<p>As much as it pains me to say, I am considering jumping ship from my micro four thirds gear. I have almost all of the Panasonic line of lenses, a GF1, and a GH2 and I love all of it. Especially the size and the lenses. It's all worlds ahead of anything else out there for video IMO.</p>

<p>But I have a nagging suspicion that the image quality just isn't what it could be. I feel the dynamic range is pretty limited, noticeably so, and that effects image quality overall. No matter what the blue channel always seems to look like pure black and white with no detail. And its been a recurring (possibly completely unfounded) thought that the images just don't look as good as my old 20d from yesteryear.</p>

<p>Sometimes I feel like I'm being too picky about these things, and that my expectations are too high. I have made plenty of incredible images on both cameras. But the new line of NEX's look awesome (save for the super weak lens line..) and are pretty tiny. Though the lenses are much bigger that micro four thirds. Every once in a while I consider getting back into the Canon system too (but now full sized SLRs feel like I'm carrying a small car around).</p>

<p>Clearly I'm flabbergasted. Do i stick it out and wait for the image quality (the only thing I see lacking in micro four thirds) to improve? Or do I take the ~$2500 i could get for my system and invest in something new? Or am I completely over thinking this and is there really nothing wrong with the image quality?</p>

<p> Any input would be helpful,</p>

<p>Sincerely,</p>

<p>Confused</p>

<p>You can spend your life chasing hardware and never being happy. </p>

<p>Or you can spend your life getting to know your tools, using them to create, and making change where you have a defined, specific, problem or need. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well, I picked up an E-PM1 recently to compliment my Nikon gear, and I almost have to agree with you. For the size of the sensor, both Olympus and Panasonic should be able to get more out of it. I don't think either company has put enough into their sensors, and without a major improvement in the next generation, I may jump ship. I so far only have the E-PM1 and kit lens, so I'm not out a lot of money.</p>

<p>That said, I find I am not getting the detail and clarity out of the shot I expected, and that may be the fault of a crappy kit lens. Need to try one of the sharper primes and see if it works better.</p>

<p>As far as dynamic range, it just seems like it is in the specs it should have been in three+ years ago. They really need to improve their sensors... </p>

<p>Thanks for the responses.</p>

<p>Zach - I'm glad to see I'm not the only one here. I'm not one of those perpetually unhappy with my image quality sort of people but I really feel like its just not what it could be. But the size and convenience is what's making me hesitant about getting rid of it...</p>

<p>It is ironic isn't it that none of the system is perfect: While they are all small,<br>

The SONY has the best sensor, but has the worst lens collection.<br>

The m4/3 has outstanding lens collection, but has the worst sensor.<br>

The Samsung also has a pretty good lens collection, but its old sensor was not that much better than the m4/3 sensor (the new one may be better though).</p>

<p>If you want to switch, do you have a clear idea where to go? If not, stay like I do. I keep my Nikon when I really need IQ and flash to complement the lack of these in the m4.3 system.</p>

This is an interesting thread for me. I have spent some time reviewing these cameras. I am satisfied with my 5D and array of L lenses for what I do. I also have and XTi with the 18-55 IS lens. I do some work with the XTi with longer Ls to shoot swimming events. As Hunts is having their annual sale I have been contemplating trading the XTi with battery grip and a couple of other lenses for a Sony NEX 5n and 18-55. However that lens does not have IS and probably is not better than my Canon APS-c lens. After over twenty years of humping heavy bags I am looking for something lighter to do at least some of my non-critical phtography. However, after reading as much as I can about these systems I don't think I will do any better image wise for a second body than my current XTi which is now five years old. CC you are right about the flash; there is nothing comparable to what I can mount on my XTi or 5d. I wonder if Canon will come out with something of this genre that is EVIL. I am, however, a big believer in making things smaller by getting rid of mirrors and their mechanics and improving and making electronic view finders and making them less expensive. But, for Sony's 16MP I would expect a better image than my 10MP rebel. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

BTW Hunts is offering the Panasonic GF2 with lens during the sale for $400.

<p>Being so dissatisfied, I suspect that your pictures never will keep up with your camera equipment.<br />Have a nice trip, Richard. </p>

<p>This is an interesting question / observation. So far as overall image quality is concerned, I have been completely satisfied with prints up to 16 x 20 inches. The comment about the blue channel is curious. I am attaching a photo made with my camera, which is Panasonic's original G1 with the original kit lens, 14-45. I have no idea what, if anything, Panasonic may have done with their sensor or processing since the G1. At any rate, the photo shows the scene pretty much as I remember it.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>But, for Sony's 16MP I would expect a better image than my 10MP rebel. Any thoughts would be appreciated.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would assume that SONY's sensor is slightly better that the 5-yr old sensor in XTi, but whether that difference is significant enough for you to switch is a personal matter that only you can decide. </p>

<p>While the SONY sensor is better than the best sensor in m4/3 by about 1 stop, m4/3 has faster lens such that you can shoot at lower ISO. It is fun to use the pancake lenses from m4/3, which are so light so nimble to use. I am thus still with m4/3, until someday SONY, or whoever, can bring out some nice and small lenses that match the small camera body.</p>

<p>The sensor in GF2 is quite old and rumor has it that a new camera called GX1 may come out to have the newest sensor (as the one in G3). But then, GF2/3 will get cheaper soon ... The sensor in GF2 is good to about ISO800; if this does not limit you, then it may be something to think about.</p>

<p>Richard,<br>

I've always felt that if you are going to add or change gear, it's wise to know what exactly you hope to get out of it. So, for instance, if you have a significant number of photos that are not coming out due to lack of dynamic range, then looking for a camera with better dynamic range makes sense as you know specifically what you will get out of it and what pictures will be improved. On the other hand if you look at your photos and dynamic range is rarely if ever an issue, but you just have a feeling that there's something better out there, then I think you'd be setting yourself up for disappointment if you spend money for new gear but were achieving the same results. The same case could be made for noise, resolution, etc.<br>

We have so much information about cameras these days, I think it can really become a burden. Almost all the cameras out there are very, very good. It's not that differences don't matter, and if someone is buying into their first system I'd encourage them to get the most capable thing they can afford for what it is they want to do. That said, if someone has already invested in a bunch of gear, I'd encourage them to know exactly, in terms out output, it is they are going to get from the new gear before they spend the cash.<br>

-Dan</p>

 

<p>Sounds like you need to turn over a new Leaf :-)</p>

<p>M4/3 is a wonderful concept. I too agree that the weak link is practical DR. I had a major probelm with it in a 4/3 Oly 510 and with a EP-2. Not sure if it was the curve or the metering or conbination of both but it didn't work for me.</p>

<p>Like Rob said, every camera is a tool for taking pictures, and has its own characteristics. Does my EP1 perform as well as my D700? With big areas of shadow, no, the digital noise is much higher; at wide angle, the lens I have is just not as good as the Nikon equivalent; etc, etc. But - closeish shots with the 20/1.7 on the EP1 are superb; flare resistance is good; shots with lots of light tones are fine; and I can carry it, a kit, and tripod to places my ageing frame will never get my D700 plus lenses. So a tool with strengths and limits. Is the sensor poor? Well sensors are improving year on year, and I'd hope that in a couple of years the same lens set will be paired with a more capable body. So I'm sticking with M43. (And is my D700, and its lenses, perfect? No, but pretty good, and I know the limitations).</p>

<p>I got my E-P2 as an affordable way into digital, using many of my MF film lenses (OM, Tamron, etc). My longer term aim was to obtain a camera which would give images acceptable to Alamy, a very demanding agency. I was very surprised to see that the E-P2 is listed as a suitable camera for image size and quality for submissions.<br>

List:<br>

<a href="http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/recommended-digital-cameras.asp">http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/recommended-digital-cameras.asp</a></p>

<p>Just goes to show, some people's "standard" may be more a perceived notion than reality.</p>

<p>If it's good enough for a stock agency, and that's their business, it should be more than good enough for any non-pro hobbyist like me and the vast majority of others who read and post in these forums.</p>

<p>Richard, I think that Thom Hogan's newest post, titled "Good Enough?" is applicable to your predicament.<br>

https://plus.google.com/112847428408357711502/posts</p>

<p>Also, go look at flickr groups with the GF1. Are other photographers able to capture photos which look good enough for you? If so, then it may be your photography. I'm inclined to agree with Frode. Have fun on your hunt, maybe it's time for you to step back to a used 40D or a 5D Mk II, which are definitely superior cameras to your GH2, but are both larger. The GH2 sensor is about equal in performance to your 20D sensor, slightly bettering it in dynamic range, but slightly worse in high ISO performance (which is understandable, considering that you have more resolution packed onto a smaller sensor). So any shortcomings in your photos may be due to your disappointment with the sensor size.</p>

<p>CC, the NEX-5n uses the same amazing sensor as the Nikon D7000 and Pentax K-5. Still, people pay so much money, as you mention, to get sensor performance but then go and blow it on higher ISOs. Sony will never have really small lenses, due to the large sensor. Just look at the latest Zeiss lens. I've said this about 20 times this week among the various camera forums that I frequent, but there's no free lunch; everything is a tradeoff. If you want a large sensor, you're going to have large lenses. If you want small lenses, then you're going to have a small sensor. All Panasonics, except for the GH1, GH2, and G3 use the same sensor. The OP would gain nothing by getting the GF2 instead of the GF1. His GH2 already has the latest and greatest m4/3 sensor performance, so if he's still not happy, then maybe m4/3 isn't for him.</p>

<p>John, Harold, and Greg: spot on. That's exactly my sentiment. My Panasonic G2 doesn't even equal the image quality of my D200, much less John's D700 or my RZ67. However, I still use my Panasonic often enough; imagine that, and it takes perfectly fine photos too. I have a point and shoot camera that's even smaller, and I often take photos with that too! Oh, the blasphemy. I've seen professional photos taken with cameras highly inferior to my G2. Heck, 5 years ago some pros were using the "abysmal" Nikon D2h, which has noticeably worse color, dynamic range, AND high ISO performance than even the GF1! So, please stop the technology merry-go-round Mr. Conductor, I'd like to get off.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sony will never have really small lenses, due to the large sensor. Just look at the latest Zeiss lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, the price and size of that Zeiss lens is disappointing. However, I disagree that much smaller lenses cannot be made just because it uses an APS-C sensor. Samsung has many pancake lenses of very high quality for their NX system, and the Pentax has been making superb pancakes for their dSLRs. For some reason, SONY does not even have a small and light and inexpensive pancake in the 40-50mm (FF eq), but instead chose to introduce the NEX system with a 16/2.8. This truly baffles me. Maybe it is not in SONY's DNA to make small and light lenses or maybe they just don't know how to do it yet.</p>

<p>PS, Nikon claims that D7000 uses Nikon's sensor, which means that Nikon has put in enough work to make it uniquely Nikon, regardless of where the template came from.</p>

<p>I like <a href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=182591565136173&set=a.182591415136188.47370.171846589544004&type=3&theater">my GF1.</a> </p>

<p>Wow after so many thoughtful responses, I'm still a bit up in the air.</p>

<p>To answer a few in general:</p>

<p>I'm not a stickler for image quality. It's all about being good enough for what I do. The big difference between me and a lot of the other photographers on here is that I'm not using the G system to supplement another system. it's my primary system. There would be no issue here if I had say a 60d and a few canon lenses for that, but thats just not the case. As much as it would solve all of my problems, I simply cannot afford to maintain two systems. I use my iPhone for casual photography and have only gotten great results from it.</p>

<p>I've spent a lot of time getting used to the camera and its quirks, but the results can still be finicky. Something I've always thought that dpreview seconded, is that the tone curve is just not ideal. Its not even really much of a curve on the highlight side, more of a diagonal line. Supposedly the nostalgia setting fixes this and improves dynamic range, but I have yet to try it.</p>

<p>I am primarily a graphic designer, and my job requires a bit of photography sometimes and I really wonder if micro four thirds is up to publication standards. In ideal conditions I know it is, but thats not always when I have to shoot.</p>

<p>I also do a lot of video at work, which I feel the GH2 is a the top of the pack for and my primary reason for getting into the system. And I would hate to see it go for that.</p>

<p>I guess my real predicament is that I knew I was compromising on a few things, but I didn't think I would be compromising on image quality as much as I am. Perhaps I need to choose between a compromise on image quality (Panasonic G system) or what I see as a severe compromise on accessibility (any full sized SLR). I'm very lazy about carrying around equipment so perhaps I just need to wait for m43 sensors to improve.</p>

<p>Still, its a great time to be a photographer.</p>

<p>Thanks for the thoughts everyone.</p>

 

<p>Richard, most of us choose the m4/3 (or NEX) b/c we want a lighter and smaller package for traveling and for going out when a much larger system is either too much work to carry or unnecessary. Cost wise, IMO, you pay more to set up a system with m4.3 so you are not saving money here for sure. Why don't you get an entry level dSLR and build the lens collection and accessories (flash) over time and just use iPhone for casual stuff?</p>

<p>What you are saying about "tone curve" (=dynamic range?) is indeed an issue with the m4/3 sensor. It tends to blow out high lights and reveals less in the shadow areas, as compared to the current top APS-C sensors. While you can address some of these issues by shooting RAW, the RAW headroom is rather limited (about half a stop). However, I grew up in a time when films and slides in particular, have narrow DR so I am always paying attention to the DR when I set up a shot. Thus, while m4/3 has narrower DR range, it is not a deal killer for me. Another reasons I like about the Pannasonic is the video and the face-detection which I use to track my wild toddlers, a task that Nikon D90 struggles to perform.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What you are saying about "tone curve" (=dynamic range?) is indeed an issue with the m4/3 sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here's what I mean by tone curve: <br>

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicDMCGH2/page12.asp">dpreview's tone curve analysis</a></p>

<p>As you can tell from the graph, just about everything out there has a gradual roll off as the highlights clip. The GH2 does not, its simply clips without any shoulder.</p>

<p>I've always been a big proponent of tone curves being one of the most important characteristics of any imager. Dynamic range is what it is but nasty highlights can really ruin things. If you look at any good cinematographer for example, There are almost always blown out highlights, but they look beautiful. For some reason photographers, myself included, don't seem to understand this. Hence we get things like HDR images that have all the information you could want, but look awful. This is why film still has a better "look" to most people, and why I think the iPhone's images (while are technically awful) always look great to my eyes. </p>

<p>If anyone wants to see a great example of this in action, check out Stu Maschwitz's (a famous filmmaker) <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/prolost/.">flickr</a>. Notice how there are always blown out highlights and black shadows, but they just look great.</p>

<p>On an interesting side note though, the nostalgia mode seems to not only increase your dynamic range to better than that of the 60D, but also introduces a nicer curve as well. Could it just be crappy processing? Panasonic has ben known to cripple great products (look at the bitrate and codec of the GH2 for example) so I wouldn't be surprised. I'll definitely tinker with this when I have a free moment.</p>

<p>I guess my new goal now is to really figure out the ins and outs of my "issue". Perhaps I need to get to know my camera even more, and just start thinking a bit more about great exposure than just getting all the information in.</p>

 

<p>All things being equal, the dynamic range/tone curve of the most advanced m4/3 sensor is not as good as the best sensor from the APS-C world. Even my D90 which has a sensor that is one generation older than the one in the current cameras, D7000/D5100/D3100, does better than m4/3 — better highlight roll off, easily recovered details from the shadow with no ugly noise, etc. The sensor is just not as good so you can tweak as much as you can, it will always lag behind other sensors in this area. In terms of processing for still images, I actually think that Pannasonic and Olympus are doing a very good job in cranking out good images using its current sensors. Judging entirely by RAW outputs (by DxO for example), the sensor in GH2 is not much better than the one in GH1, but its JPEGs are better, in terms of high ISO performance (but not DR, which is about the same as the one in GH1).</p>

<p>I once saw a comparison of video using film, Canon 5D, GH1, and Nikon D3S, and the Canon returned the most film-like results in terms of DR. If a film-like DR is what you are looking for, I am afraid that m4/3 may not be your best choice. Do you mind manual focus? If not, you could use the NEX with an adapter and have access to many cheap and good lenses. If size of the camera is not important, dSLRs still offer the best bang for the buck and the videos in many APS-C cameras are getting better ...</p>

<p>Richard, you have to decide whether the camera provides publishable work for you. m4/3 definitely has less room for error, and requires more careful exposure and postprocessing to get similar results compared to APS sensors. You basically have to ask yourself whether the increased size of a comparable kit (the 7D is the current APS choice for video + still work) is worth carrying around. Again, check out some photographers that are using m4/3, and see if they're able to capture what you're looking for.</p>

<p>CC, Nikon didn't use a template of the Sony sensor. The D7000's sensor is literally a Sony sensor, from a Sony factory, shipped to Nikon to install into their camera.<br>

http://www.chipworks.com/en/technical-competitive-analysis/resources/recent-teardowns/2011/01/teardown-of-the-nikon-d7000-dslr/<br>

The sensor comes from a Sony manufacturing plant and is a Sony part. I don't know how much more Sony it can be. It has been clearly established online that Nikon gets many of its sensors from them.<br>

About NEX and lens sizes: if you make a lens into a pancake, you make some optical tradeoffs. There are no free lunches. With the NEX Zeiss lens, and the m4/3 Leica lenses, this is obvious that Carl Zeiss and Leica choose optical quality, at the expense of size, for a lens that their name is being put on. While the Panasonic 20mm lens may be very good optically, for example, the tradeoffs are mediocre border performance, vignetting, and autofocus speed and noise compared to if the lens was not a pancake. Don't get me wrong, the 20mm is a great lens, and everyone that begins to get serious in m4/3 should invest in one because of its versatility, but it's not a perfect performer. If you choose to limit size when designing a lens, some other aspects of it invariably will suffer. It seems that Sony has some different design decisions, that are leading them to choose image quality over convenience. They seem to have decided to market their system as an SLR replacement, rather than the many m4/3 bodies that are backups to peoples' SLR setups. Even still, there's a limit because again, with the sensor size, you need a certain minimum size. Due to it, if you were to take any m4/3 lens, and you wanted to make a comparable version upsized for the Sony NEX cameras, it would have to be 40% bigger, if you want to retain it's optical performance.</p>

<p>G'day Richard</p>

<p>I understand what you are saying, but for me the m4/3 kit I have is to supplement my DSLRs not replace them. I have an E-PL2 with two kit zooms, an Oly 9-18, a VF-2 and FL36R flash. I bought this to replace my Canon 400D instead of trading the 400D for a new 600D.</p>

<p>I have found the Oly to be not quite as good as the 400D in DR and noise, so I've decided to keep the 400D for now. If I want IQ that is superb then I'll use my 5DII; if I want fast and accurate AF with a high frame rate then I'll use my 7D. If I want to travel light and small then I'll use the E-PL2. In this context the IQ of the Oly is acceptable - I shoot RAW and avoid high ISOs and high contrast scenes with deep shadow.</p>

<p>If I could only have one camera body and one lens it would be the 5DII with the EF 24-105L, no questions. If the E-PL2 rig was my only setup I'd be disappointed. However, if I use it as a tool in my arsenal and understand its limitations then I'm quite happy with it. And yes, I do believe that m4/3 will improve their sensors so I'm not worried by the output of my E-PL2.</p>

<p>BTW I chose m4/3 over NEX because I wanted a small and light system (the NEX lenses put me off size wise) and I wanted a system camera with flash hotshoe and EVF plus the wide variety of m4/3 lenses available. I believe I have made the right choice in going with m4/3.</p>

<p>Cheers, Bob</p>