Why invest on expensive lenses when...

<p>Hi guys,<br>

I was about to purchase a new lens for my 40D when I decided to wait for a while and check out the new 4/3 options out there. I am not a sport or action photographer but more of a street and holiday one and all those Canon/ Nikon bulky bodies seem to me to find a dead-end soon, since mirror-less cameras make more sense. They use the same size sensor, they are small, affordable and the lenses are just good. at least the primes.<br>

If RED cameras are becoming more and more popular in cinema then 4/3 mirror-less seem to the obvious replacement to the old and bulky prisma lens cameras.<br>

What do you think?<br>

thanks<br>

Micha</p>

 

<p>It all depends on your definition of "a while" and "soon".</p>

<p>The real question would be: are you a photographer who wants to take pictures *now* or not.</p>

<p>Canon bodies are not going to disappear anytime "soon", that's for sure. If you don't like your 40D sell it and get something you like, otherwise your 'theory' makes very little sense.</p>

<p>TTL viewfinder are much valued by many. EVIL cameras may never replace TTL for many.<br>

I have a 5D and an LX3 and there is nothing inbetween those sizes yet that has tempted me to buy in. I could never give up FF to buy into a smaller sensor system.<br>

Although the Sony NEX-5 looking interesting:<br>

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/1005/10051102sonynex.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/news/1005/10051102sonynex.asp</a></p>

<p>why little sense? the world is shrinking and bulky cameras don't make sense except for ergonomic reasons. 35mm cameras where not that big, in fact range finders where small and easy for journalism use.<br>

I like my 40D and I would even go with a full frame if I could afford one but the image results I see from the new 4/3 are just so dam good and they keep on getting better.<br>

just a debatable question that I was inetrested to ask.<br>

Micha</p>

<p>I have been wanting to "downsize" from Canon to m4/3 for a while now, but common sense tells me i have a couple of L lenses and i am worried that i won't be happy with the glass quality. I'm sure the pics will look great... but "L" great? i can't afford to have 2 systems... I wish i could. I rented a 5dMk2 for the last wedding i did, which was awesome, but 75% of my photography is my kids on the weekends, and having something compact would be amazing. I handled the EPL-1 last week, and fell instantly in love. </p>

<p>Delete posting, sorry....</p>

<p>Electronic Viewfinders don't deliver uninterrupted viewing (these pesky lines need to be refreshed...) which makes the entire concept a non-starter for many people/applications (yeah, there is a VF blackout in SLR type cameras but it occurs after shutter release.) FF is not going anywhere and for a variety of reasons smaller sensors are inferior for many applications.<br>

Besides, smaller not always equals better: imagine a smallish body (even a Rebel) with a 400/2.8 lens attached...How comfortable that would be! Ergonomics trumps many a factor in camera selection if you shoot often and for long hours. </p>

<p>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</p>

<p>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>So why did I buy one?<br>

Well I got it to put old FD glass onto a digital body.<br>

What is good about it<br>

1 Image quality at low ISO in bright light is quite good - certainly good enough for 17x11 inch prints<br>

2 Small portable size<br>

3 Articulated LCD display is very useful for macro and low level shots<br>

4 Can use old FD glass</p>

<p>Here is an image from the G1 (I think the lens used was the old FD 80-200 F4L zoom)</p>

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

<p>Image quality is different to image aesthetics and you cannot replicate FF fast glass on a smaller sensor. Even if you get the sensor in a small mirrorless body you are left with the size of the fast glass.<br>

If Canon release an APS sensor in a mirrorless body that will take EF lens I'm in otherwise it's high end compacts until then.</p>

<p>Of course, a G1 with an 80-200 f/4L on it makes the portability point a bit moot... :)</p>

<p>@Micha: "little sense" because they are NOT the same cameras. They don't have the same features, ISO performance, etc... at least, not today.<br>

With everything else being equal one would opt for a smaller/lighter rig (most of the time) but, the fact is that today, everything else is NOT equal. So, you have to decide what the most important features are for you and select your camera kits accordingly.<br>

For me, there is no way I would *replace* my DSLRs kits with those other cameras.</p>

<p>I am looking for something smaller too but I would not replace my 5d2. I must admit I have had my eye on 4/3 for a while now but I am probably leaning toward an advanced p/s. IMO at this stage in the game 4/3 is way off of what a 5d2 can do but for most general use it would be more then enough for me. I just wonder how much smaller 4/3 is compared to a rebel once you use a larger lens then the pancake and ad the viewfinder. Tough call but I think many people who shoot for fun are thinking this way.</p>

<p>the sensors for 4/3 are smaller. sony and samsung have bigger sensors. unless you plan on shooting without a tripod and a viewfinder idk what you think image quality will be like.<br>

with a tripod, sure. i guess i cant see the problem.</p>

 

<p>Yes forget 4/3 sensors now (sorry GF1) APS sensors are here in the same sized mirrorless bodies although they will always require larger glass.</p>

<p>[[besides, smaller not always equals better: imagine a smallish body (even a Rebel) with a 400/2.8 lens attached...How comfortable that would be!]]</p>

<p>You shoot the 400mm f/2.8 hand-held?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I want to be able to print quite large, and I use lenses from 14mm to 500mm (FF). m4/3 has appeal to me only for a camera that I can easily carry when my intention is not photography but when I might happen on something very worthy of a photo. Besides, using a variety of different types of cameras (film, digital, medium format, large format, WLF) is simply fun.</p>

<p>I do some of my "serious" photography with a little G11 now. The reason I carry it is because it's small and can ALWAYS travel with me in my purse, just in case I happen to see something interesting. Case in point: I was in an auto parts store a couple of days ago, buying a bulb. A guy walks in with a parrot on his shoulder. The bird is his best buddy, and they go everywhere together. I thought, "cool" and asked him if he minded me photographing them for a series I'm doing that profiles Americans in everyday life. He said to go ahead, so I pulled out my G11 and did so. Both he and his bird moved so quickly and so randomly that it was hard (I mean REALLY HARD) to get a good shot of the two of them, considering the shutter lag. I eventually did, but it took a LOT of shots. I really wished at that time that I had been holding my (relatively huge) 5D, because I could have nailed what I wanted in a few frames.</p>

<p>That evening I went for a walk on the beach. There were lots of fishing boats that looked really nice against the landscape of the harbor and the dusk sky behind. I mounted my G11 on a Tiltall I had in the truck (which was kinda funny) and took the shot. It came out great, but it would have come out better with my 5D.</p>

<p>Yesterday we took a drive up the coast. I took my 5D and a few likely lenses. 'Nuff said.</p>

<p>Do I still like and use my G11? Of course! I bought it because it's small and light and because I can carry it with me always (in the same spirit that the best camera is the one you have with you). However, it's not even in the same ballpark as my 5D in its capabilities.</p>

<p>In case you're interested, I wrote a technical and rather comprehensive comparison of formats here:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/fullframe.htm">http://www.graphic-fusion.com/fullframe.htm</a></p>

<p>I might look at a full frame, semi-compact digital (size of my Leica IIIf, for instance, with telescoping 50mm lens) a bit differently. Until then, I love my 5D much more than I love my G11.</p>

<p><em>> You shoot the 400mm f/2.8 hand-held?</em><br>

Yep. Not that it's easy - over 17 lbs with 1D4 attached to it. But even when mounted on a monopod, holding/manipulating a small body is not comfortable even with a 5D/xxD sized camera. Small cameras do have a place in photography but not for everything.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the world is shrinking and bulky cameras don't make sense except for ergonomic reasons.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How does the size of the world relate to the size of a camera?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How does the size of the world relate to the size of a camera?<br>

you know what I mean. -)<br>

M</p>

</blockquote>

<p>thanks guys for the replies. as I mention in my post I did not compare FF cameras to 4/3 but rather the cropped sensor ones since they are starting to become very similar cameras except for the FOV etc...<br>

Having 2 cameras (or more) is great but that was not my debatable question. I was only asking about the use of a APS-C bulky cameras against the new and very good 4/3.<br>

by the way...Sony can kiss my .... hate that company. how stupid is the NEX? that's an ergonomic disaster. <br>

Micha</p>

<p>Micha, is 4/3 that much smaller then a rebel series camera? I cant seem to find any comparisons that show the size on the web.</p>

 

<p>I've never contemplated a 4/3's at all until this showed up in my inbox today, .... very very<br /> intriguing. Cheers!<br /> <a href="http://digital-photography-school.com/sony-nex-3-review">http://digital-photography-school.com/sony-nex-3-review</a></p>

<p>edit: I should have noted, this isn't a 4/3's camera but size wise it's as small as one,<br>

is mirror-less and it's APS-C too.</p>

<p>i was just reading this post when i decided to text a buddy of mine to ask if he bought a camera yet. He sold a dslr awhile back but just wants something he can carrie around with him. he said no he didnt buy it yet (Canon G11). So I decided to look on the net and after seaching found this http://www.photoxels.com/pr-sony-nex3-nex5/</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What do I think?</p>

<p>I think I wouldn't be caught dead shooting with a 4/3 camera unless I didn't care much about the subject (in which case I wouldn't be shooting it anyway).</p>

<p>I think might use a 4/3 camera to take shots for Ebay, for example, if and only if my DSLR's were all in the repair shop at the same time.</p>

<p>I think I'd rather use a "bulky" camera with a full-frame sensor (or larger) so I can take advantage of the higher image quality and the superior high-ISO noise control.</p>

<p>I think that the "same sized sensor" is only applicable to crop-format cameras (which I don't use or own).</p>

<p>I think that cameras with smaller-than-full-frame sensors are seriously hampered by digital noise and by lens diffraction effects.</p>

<p>I think that I'd prefer to stick with a system that provides dedicated macro lenses, dedicated perspective control (tilt/shift) lenses, dedicated wide-angle and fisheye lenses, and professional telephoto lenses.</p>

<p>I think that it's not worth it for me to invest in a system that doesn't feature fast lenses (f/2.8 and faster for full frame, f/2 or faster for crop frame).</p>

<p>I think that 4/3 cameras have extremely limited flash capability compared with most DSLR's (crop and full).</p>

<p>I think I need a camera with a good supply of dedicated buttons and knobs so I can access many features very quickly.</p>

<p>I think that after a decade of lugging medium and large-format cameras around that a full-frame DSLR isn't really "bulky" at all.</p>

<p>I think that the people who need the best gear will buy and carry the best gear, and the rest of the population will snap their world with smart phones and other types of miniaturized cameras.</p>

<p>Anyway, that's what I think.</p>

<p>The problem with all these mirrorless camera designs that use 'larger' sensors such as APS and 4/tirds (as the Irish say) is that even with all the cutting edge technology mustered into making the smallest camera body possible as soon as you slap a lens on the front with an image circle to cover the sensor then it becomes not so small and convenient. You also lose TTL optical view. And if you want anything more than a prime you need to start carrying it in a bag with all the accessories that go with it. So the likes of the G11 and LX3 start to make alot of sense.<br>

Personally I want Canon to give us a camera the size of the T2i with FF and the knobs and build of the G10 and the rear QCD control dial of the 5D etc. This could be done with existing technology I'm sure.</p>