mirrorless construction - advantage for handheld ?

<p>Does the absence of the mirror slap bring <strong>real </strong>advantage for handheld photography ? <strong>does</strong> this ,along with the in-body stabilisation compensate the poorer high ISO performance of the 3/4 sensor?<br>

This construction sistem seems very appealing to me ,like the rangefinder ,could permit a longer exposure time handheld(teoretically).</p>

<p>No.</p>

<p>If you can't hold a DSLR and get sharp images at slower shutter speeds, your handholding technique is the problem, not the design of the camera.</p>

<p>Poor high ISO performance can only be solved with a better sensor and better processing. If you need a mirrorless 4/3rd's system, one exists today. If the high ISO performance of that system is not good enough, your argument is out the window.</p>

<p>I think the mirror slap of modern DSLRs is so small that it doesn't really cause camera blurr when you handhold the camera.</p>

<p>The real problem is the fact that the LCD-only cameras cannot be handheld in the conventional (D)SLR style, which should increase the chances of camera blurr.</p>

<p>I would be interessed in a lighter kit than my canon xti, so a pana g1 or gf1 or oly ep1 could be interesting.Preferably g1 because of the viewfinder.On the other hand, the ep1 has in-body stabilisation,but no viewfinder.Even my g9 I use frequently with its poor viewfinder</p>

<p>The fourthirds and micro4/3 systems may not be ideal for wide angle, for example on my Olympus E500 14mm is really like 28mm, something to consider. Also M4/3 cameras often have to be held at arms length, using screen on back of camera for composition and autofocus. If size is paramount I'd suggest the smallest 1.5 crop DSLR with a pancake style lens.</p>

<p>Two great extra wide angles zooms exist for the 4/3rd's format, Paul. The 9-18 Zuiko works great as an 18-36mm effective focal length zoom, which is more than wide enough for most users. To go wider in any format gets very expensive, and Olympus has that covered too with the 7-14 Zuiko, a 14-28mm effective focal length zoom which is as good as it gets in any format.</p>

<p><a href="#74908416_8ETdz"><img id="lightBoxImage" src="http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Travel/Paris-France-May-28-June-10/P6045090/74908416_8ETdz-L-1.jpg" alt="" /></a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/#122453425_iKucd"><img id="lightBoxImage" src="http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Travel/Paris-France-May-28-June-10/P5304130/122453425_iKucd-L-2.jpg" alt="" /></a></p>

<p>Micro four-thirds users have the Panasonic 7-14 and in 2010 Olympus is introducing a version of their 9-18 zoom, and the EP-2 is sold with a super quality electronic eye-level finder in addition to the Panasonic G1 and GH1, which both come with tremendous quality eye level finders, so I'm not sure where you are coming from in your view of the micro four-thirds system, and the wide angle argument against the four-thirds format holds no water at all.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Mirror slap is mainly an issue at shutter speeds of about 1/15 of a second (on full frame cameras). At this shutter speed you cannot generally hand hold the camera and expect to get a sharp photo. You generally need to mount the camera on a tripod. The only time I saw it was with a 300mm lens on the camera (a very unballanced load and it was a film camera) mounted on a cheep tripod . At higher shutter speeds you will not see any mirror effects and at slower shutter speeds the mirror vibration is gone long before the exposure is complete. The crop factor of 2 on a 4/3 cameras (that have a mirror) may change the shutter speed at which mirror slap is an issue to some extent but not significantly.</p>

<p>High iso settings result in noise in the image. Stabilization (in body or in lens) does not change the noise in any way. Stabilization will allow you to hand hold the camera at a slower shutter speed, so you could reduce the ISO setting to allow you to use a lower shutter speed. The lower iso would help to reduce noise to some extent. Today IS (in body or in lens) is available on point and shoot cameras as well as APS-C and full frame DSLR cameras. So any advantage IS provides to m4/3 is negated since IS would provide the same benifites to DSLR cameras.</p>

<p>The main advantage of the m4/3 standard is that the camera is smaller and more portable than a DSLR, the larger sensor maintains good image quality since the image sensor is significantly larger than the sensor in a point and shot, while maintaining the capability to change the lenses.</p>

<p>I do not know first hand. I am thinking why would that be likely. Or push one to the micro 4/3 on that basis. I want an EP-2, but as an adjunct not replacement to my E-3.<br>

I have not read or seen any manufacturer claims for less motion blur caused my a pentaprism free mirrorless construction, - So many variables that I am thinking the theoretical advantage is either moot or irrelevant. I think that Steven has come close to a good summary of advantage of micro for some. And Greg C shows again the beautiful color reproduction from the Olympus 4/3 sensor with a good optic. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thank you for your oppinions.<br />Greg, beautiful work! Could you provide the exif data?Thanks!<br />I am looking at the m3/4 for greater portability than a Rebel XTi+lenses (wich I find to be too bulky in some situations)without sacrificing low-light ability (at least not too much-like a compact -G9 )</p>

<p>The G1 shutter is quite loud. Although I doubt their vertical shutter will contribute more vibration than a leaf shutter which to me is the ultimate in vibration free capture, unless you are talking about shutterless capture.<br>

Another point about micro 4/3 is that there is no mirror and thus theoretically a non retro focus lens design is achievable which means higher image quality to be expected.<br>

Anyway, vibration from handshake is probably many times more than mirror slap in handheld situations.</p>

<p>The G1 or GH1 will probably be easier to handhold than the EP or GF as they are bigger and can be held to the eye. The Panasonic kit lens is has IS good for about two stops. That said my Canon DSLRs are easier to handhold as their mass dampens them and they have faster lenses (all mine are F2.8 or faster or F4 with IS but you have to pay for this) and much better high ISO performance. to my eyes the 5DII at 3200 is as good as the G1 at 400. thus you have 3 stops of high ISO and 1-2 stops of faster lens - offset by two stops of IS as none of my F2.8 zooms (16-35 II, 24-70 and 70-200) have IS. With the Rebel you will lose 1-2 stops of high ISO but the kit lenses will be similiar and you may not have IS on the Canon. Having played with the EP-1 I would suggest that the traditionally styled G1/GH1 is much easier to handhold due to the grip, viewfinder and size. After all of this I find that I can handhold the G1 with Canon FD glass at quite low shutter speeds if I am careful - about 90% keepers with a 50mm lens (effective 100 mm) at 1/60. </p>

<p>Teo,</p>

<p>Thank you. Those two images are located in the two links below. Go there, place your curser over the image and a side bar will appear with an option to see the image data. Those were taken with an E300 and the 7-14 Zuiko. I have a framed 30x40 print of the Eiffer Tower in my office at work.</p>

<p><a href="http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Travel/Paris-France-May-28-June-10/1547796_uBqhW#122453425_iKucd">http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Travel/Paris-France-May-28-June-10/1547796_uBqhW#122453425_iKucd</a></p>

<p><a href="http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Travel/Paris-France-May-28-June-10/1547796_uBqhW#74908416_8ETdz">http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Travel/Paris-France-May-28-June-10/1547796_uBqhW#74908416_8ETdz</a></p>

<p>Philip,of course the 5DMk2 is 3 stops advantage over the G1 ,it's a full frame with twice of resolution .But again , you are right, the extra mass helps dampening the vibration.Your informations are very useful to me, probably a g1 could be my choice of ultra light/compact travel kit.It's a shame ,however that it has no in-body IS.<br>

Greg, I like your work .those images are handheld ,or tripod mounted?</p>

 

<p>Yes a G1 with sensor based IS would be perfect for old MF lenses. I am very happy with the image quality of the G1 it is very high at lower ISO, especially in bright light. It is not only a higher resolution image than the 6,8 and 10MP Canon APS-C sensors but also has better colour depth.</p>

<p>Hi Teo.</p>

<p>For that particular trip, I did well just hauling the outfit I took (E300, 7-14, 14-54 and 50-200 Zuikos) to Paris around the city and Metro system for 13 days. In many of the places we went, a tripod would not have been permitted, so it was left at home. I took whatever steps I could, like bracing myself against walls or columns, using the odd chair where available or just getting as small as I could to keep things as steady as possible.</p>

<p>I don't know ... myself I have found I can never hold a SLR camera at such long exposures as 1 second as I can my G1. I found this also with all of my digital cameras. I do not know if it is anything to do with mirror slap or more to do with the optical switch which happens as the mirror moves which causes a unconscious flinch.</p>

<p>For example, the image below was taken recently on a holiday abroard at 1/5th of a second hand holding with an effective focal length of 90mm ... it is quite sharp I do not think I could have done that with my SLR.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4010/4240752836_dd656417c0_o.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Yashio,well done! At 90mm effective focal length we can do it also with a stabilised lens on a Canon or Nikon DSRL. The real problem is there where we have no stabilised lens available even if the focal length of a ultra wide permits longer exposure times(especially when we have no 2.8 but f4 available as on a Tokina 12-24 or Sigma 10-20-I would be more confortable with stabilisation even on a 12 mm)By the way,here you used 400ISO or 800? what aperture?<br>

Greg,not a lightweight outfit ,after all!! but beautiful results when you know what you are doing.Here i've seen why Olympus is still in the bussiness!!!</p>

 

<p>Teo</p>

<p>yes, in this instance I 'cheated' and my 45mm has stabilisation activated so this is not a good supporting example. I am just so proud of what a good working partner my G1 is that I wished to present this.</p>

<p>You are right and similar can be had with any stabilised system including the EOS, however (as a long time EOS user and one who still owns EOS film equipment) I found I could never get as good a result hand held with a DSLR (I've owned 10D and 20D as well) as I can with a digital without the mirror movement.So here is a better example, taken with the 9-18mm zoom, which is not stabilised.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2739/4243837305_54de1e6aab.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>and here is a 100% segment from the upper right middle</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4053/4244610416_f209d35916_o.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>the exposure time was 0.8 seconds and this again was hand held.<br>

(note: I do not know why the above is being scaled, please find the original 100% here http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4053/4244610416_f209d35916_o.jpg)<br>

I know that I've been better able to get better results hand held with non stabalised legacy OM lenses than anything I ever did on SLR cameras without stabilised lenses, so I stand by my previous assertion.</p>

<p>To answer your other question, it was 400 ISO and f5.6</p>

<p>Hello, Yoshio !Thank you for your oppinion it's important because you can compare both systems ,being a user of both.</p>

<p>Great exposures of sculptural detail. Likely impossible not too long ago. Some things get better all the time.</p>

<p>But even if there are ultra wide and wide lenses now for the 3/4 system(and micro3/4)those lenses are way too expensive(especially the 7-14 at 1500$)</p>

<p>Again....you are not looking at all the options. The 7-14 is not the only option, nor is it out of line, price-wise, compared to comperable models in other systems.</p>

<p>Good superwide lenses are not inexpensive. Yes, the 7-14 is $1,500. It's also a huge, professional lens for either pros or those wanting the ultimate performance and is very comperable to what users of other systems have available. Nikon's top-of the-line model, the 14-24 f2.8 costs over $1,800, with the difference of getting you one more f-stop at f2.8, but you have the added expense of having to use it on a full-frame body to get the 14mm field of view. Canon's 16-35 f2.8 costs $1,520 and, again, you have to use it on a much more expensive full-frame body to get the 16mm field of view.</p>

<p>Olympus has a consumer 9-18mm f4-5.6 that costs $485...if you really think this is expensive for a good ultra-wide, no one's going to be able to help you, as it is not, and gives you an18-36mm field of view that is very, very good and competes with any other brand price or performance-wise. Again, the wide angle argument against the 4/3rd's system is (still) a completely baseless argument and I have not even mentioned the really excellent 11-22 f2.8-3.5 Zuiko that is a first-class, but not quite as wide, extra wide angle lens.</p>

<p>These were shot with a 9-18 Zuiko on an E620.</p>

<p><a href="#608882620_FFrSG"><img id="lightBoxImage" src="http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Other/Olympus-E620-Files/P8020771/608882620_FFrSG-L.jpg" alt="" /></a><br /><a href="#614438544_597tP"><img id="lightBoxImage" src="http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Other/Olympus-E620-Files/P8081104/614438544_597tP-L.jpg" alt="" /></a><br /><a href="#691383371_uqXTR"><img id="lightBoxImage" src="http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Portfolio/Fort-Worth-Alliance-Air/PA244509/691383371_uqXTR-L.jpg" alt="" /></a></p>

<p>The micro four-third's system will be getting its' own version of the Olympus 9-18 super wide angle and should be priced very similarly. It may be priced a little higher when it first comes out this year as the regular 4/3rd's version was in the $550-$585 range when it first came out, but has drifted down in price over time.</p>

<p>Hi, again !<br>

The 9-18 is really in the price target(even that I found it around 500-600,also the 11-22,but the 9-18 is lighter and this is important ,like the quality and price.It has also very good reviews , and f/4.<br>

The contenders in the APS-C camp (price target under 600$) are the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and the Tokina 12-24 f/4(wich has very good priceds now , under 400 $) for the Canon/Nikon bodies(unstabilised) and also the Sigma 10-20 wich is a tad slower(4-5.6)<br>

For the stabilised APS-C bodies (Pentax and Sony) , only the Sigma 10-20 .Tokina doesn't support these brands (it's a shame) and the 12-24 f/4 from Pentax it's around 900$</p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/previews/samsungnx10/">http://www.dpreview.com/previews/samsungnx10/</a><br>

mirrorless,<br>

light,<br>

APS-C 15Mpx sensor.......but totally new monture sistem(only 3 lenses availabe) and no body satabilisation(after all useless because of incompatibility),and no ultra wide...Interesting, after all because it seems to me that this could be a trend...if the big boys enter the game, the DSLR is toasted.</p>