Some thoughts about Micro 4/3, plus an intriguing experiment

Discussion in 'Mirrorless Digital Cameras' started by Karim Ghantous, Feb 28, 2020.

  1. Not a terribly good analogy. With lenses you pretty much get what you pay for, with a good correlation between price and performance - usually. Watches, not so much.

    My cheap, and I think good-looking and well-made Lorus wristwatch keeps time to within 3 seconds per month. I'd gain absolutely nothing in timekeeping performance by 'upgrading' to a showy-looking (possibly even tacky) Rolex, Omega or Tag-heur. It would have been a different story in the days of mechanical watches, but not nowadays.
     
  2. There is a reason my Nikon D300 returns more "keepers" than my newer cameras. The pure pleasure of driving a classic! You just want to push that button over and over for the visceral feedback from one of Nikon's best. More pushes equals more keepers.
     
  3. He wasn't talking about lenses, he was talking about different formats. And Omega and Rolex are mechanical only, they are Leicas of wrist watches:)
     
  4. Tripod! What tripod?

    [​IMG]Waxing Gibbous Moon by David Stephens, on Flickr
     
  5. I'd defy anyone to tell the difference between two pictures, one taken with a Leica body, and another with a Zorki, both using the same lens.

    As for watches. If you find the case and dial design pleasing, and the hands point in the right direction to tell you the correct time - who should care what logo it bears? Or what goes on inside the case?

    Mechanical shmanicle. That just says -"I don't care about accuracy or performance, I'd rather use outdated and wasteful technology because it's more expensive and I can afford it, and I'm obsessed with peer pressure and approval." Plus, "I don't actually have the skill or patience to make anything as precise as a watch movement, but I jolly well approve of those clever chaps that do. So just to show my appreciation I'll wear something they've made, even though it doesn't actually work that well."
     
  6. Are you saying that's handheld David?
    If so, you must have used a stabilised lens, and a shutter speed well above 1/60th, because the movement of the moon alone leads to blur at anything below 1/125th.
     
  7. Check the metadata. ;-)
     
  8. I chose micro-four-thirds for a couple of reasons...- first I wanted a small camera body for taking with me while bicycling. The Olympus EPL-7 has served that purpose very nicely. Secondly, I wanted a durable weather resistant camera for shooting nature, thus the Panasonic G9 fills that niche. The G9 being larger in size can handle larger lens better. Plus, when using a Panasonic lens you get dual stabilization. I have been very pleased with this combo.
     
    Robin Smith likes this.
  9. This is interesting. I accidentally posted it in the Casual forum, and so I assume that many of you have seen it by now. We have every right to expect that larger sensors can and will out-perform smaller ones, but in this case, the smaller sensor was the victor, save for AF speed:


    (10:14)

    Keep in mind that the GH5s has a slightly wider sensor, somewhere between Micro 4/3 and APS-C. And that its resolution is 12Mpx, or 4K.
     
  10. Used m43 for about a year. Beautiful results from the smaller sensor. What killed it for me was lack of easy to use manual controls.
     
  11. Good point! I am tempted also by the Fuji system, partly due to its controls.

    I recall the '90s when the best selling AF SLRs were the F4 and the EOS-1 (FWIW, back then I really, really wanted an RTS III!). I liked Canon's film cameras for sure, and I even used one or two. But Nikon understood photographers and what they want and need from a camera. Not modernism, but how we interact with our tools. Nikon took photographers seriously, and they took design seriously, too.
     
  12. A 600mm for full frame is $1998

    Sony 200-600 F5-6.3 FE

    excellent hand holdable full frame 600mm on Sony FE
     
  13. Isn't a camera just a light tight box with a lens. Assuming the thing gives you an accurate shutter speed, the camera isn't going to effect how the lens works in film cameras. I wouldn't expect to see any difference.
     
    steve_gallimore|1 likes this.

Share This Page