Is FourThirds system for me?

[godfrey]

<p><a title="Verse 43 by Godfrey DiGiorgi, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3425/3721161650_01c6fb90ea_o.jpg" alt="Verse 43" width="818" height="838" /></a><br /> <br /> <em><strong>Verse 43</strong><br /> <br /> The most yielding thing in the world<br /> will overcome the most rigid<br /> The most empty thing in the world<br /> will overcome the most full<br /> From this comes a lesson —<br /> Stillness benefits more than action<br /> Silence benefits more than words<br /> <br /> Rare indeed are those who are still<br /> Rare indeed are those who are silent<br /> And so I say,<br /> Rare indeed are those<br /> who obtain the beauty of the world.<br /> <br /> - Tao Te Ching<br /></em> <br /> <br /> Olympus E-1 + ZD 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5<br /> ISO 100 @ f/5.6 @ 1/100 sec, fl=15mm<br /> flickr page:

[guido_reni]

<p>If you want to play with depth of field without going to ridiculous lengths, forget about Four Thirds. I have recently sold my Olympus kit and bought a used Canon 5D (for the same price as a e30) and wow, I am like a pig in muck. Full frame with a fast prime and I realise all the fun, control and image quality I have been missing out on. Unless you are into heavy telephoto or macro), this would be the upgrade to go for. The only downside is weight (and extra cost of course). I did feel a pang of disloyalty and wanted to believe in Four Thirds, but I'm very happy I have moved on...</p>

[russel_yee]

<p>Bob, don't sweat the answers you're getting... some ppl only see what they want to see. Your question is plainly stated and for the most part ignored by the folks who "answered. You are right what someone else likes about 4/3's has nothing to do with your equipment or photographic asperations... but what are you gonna do?<br>

for what its worth (and also partially ignoring your question) I didn't buy into 4/3's because of the lack of a semi fast wide angle prime and the fact that the F2 zooms were $2000. I really wanted a e620 for the small depth dimension of the camera, but in the end the lack of a prime in the area of 17-21mm turned me off. Also, the zooms, other than the lowest tier are fairly long which cuts down on portability for me.</p>

<p><em></em></p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Depth of field and even bokeh are non issues for moving to 4/3 where I sit. Don't believe me as you choose. It is a matter of learning to use the equipment with the field of view 2X factor for a FL with a DOF that is tied to the FL optically. I do a few portraits. Yep,noow have to consider moving my Photek background a little further to make it softer and hide the wrinkles, or the bushes a little farther back to put them out of focus. "Ridiculous lengths" to play with depth of field is a little extreme statement not worth debating but is not my take on it. "Adjustment" that I will agree with. You would get "adjustment" if you shot medium format too.</p>

<p>( I never heard my son in Faribanks say ' thanks for sending that Canon A 590 IS camera Dad, but shucks I am having trouble getting a nice mushy background' (Dave is a discriminating shooter, makes use of the great p and s DOF with is kids in action)) But yes it is part of the "compromise" if you will, Bob, that 4/3 takes some adjustment from the (so called )'full frame' sector But not so durned much to cause a drop of sweat. Guess I stand by my decision to stick with 4/3. I got plenty enough control for my needs and flexibility. And, to be poking at choices of friend Guido, last time I held the EOS 5D it was a little on the SUV scale size with its L lens....<br>

Longish threads lately. Good. Increase in discussion on 4/3 and micro four thirds and Olympus Forum thread length. That is kind of welcome in what was deemed a slow place not so long ago..... And the discourse is naturally mature and informed and non confrontational much anyway. Befitting PN Code of Conduct:-) -- Sei gesuhnt, salute',+ cheers...gs</p>

[rdm]

<p>What the hell is standard about Nikon, or Canon DSLRs? they each use different sensors with different crop factors.<br>

So with going along that line of thinking i guess the Olympus is Standard too</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>We do get a heap of generalizations, Dan, re sensor size and their effects, both pros and cons. An actual well illustrated comparison is helpful, as in below piece. I recommend it to OP or anyone in the market for a DSLR , now or later . A good five minute read:</p>

<p>http://www.wrotniak.com/photo/43/sensor-size.html</p>

 

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>Canon and Nikon both offer no less than 3 different sensor sizes for the same mount. Nothing standard over there... especially if you want to talk focal length and DOF, you have to talk about specific cameras or sensors mated to specific lenses... it's a mess. At least with 4/3's you know that the focal length equivalency to 35mm is 2x.</p>

[robert_feeney]

<p>I doubt anyone buys into what Olympus is selling specifically because of the four thirds system although I personally love how much easier it is to multiply my focal lengths by 2 rather than 1.6. In 33 years of photography for both profit and pleasure I have gone from Minolta to Nikon, back for a brief flirtation with Minolta (while still owning the my Nikon system) and then, when the digital bug finally caught me and after much research, I settled on Olympus.  <br>

Each change in loyalty was for the same two reasons:<br>

1) excellent (in some cases peerless) consumer reports<br>

2) (More important than #1) It felt right in my hands.<br>

One thing I appreciate about Olympus is their innovation.  They were the first with a dust removal system for the image sensor and the first with a live view SLR.  On top of that, when I think of the grief I have put my cameras through over the last few years I can honestly say they are as tough as nails.  I started with an EVOLT-300 (built like a tank) and traded up to two E510 bodies 18 months ago.  They have travelled far in all kinds of weather and temperature without any problem. <br>

In a college level photography program I recently took, I was the only one of about 60 people who didn't have either Nikon or Canon equipment.   I don't want to knock either brand.  I used to sell both but they have only swept the North American digital SLR market for two reasons; Excellent marketing and the ability to use old SLR lenses with new digital bodies.  Thay are probably just as good as Olympus but, given the same features, both are more expensive, bulky for no good reason and have a less durable feel to them (my opinion only on the last 2 reasons).<br>

Bottom line,  if you're happy with what you have, stick with it.  The four thirds aspect of the Olympus system is not going to change anyone's life but, if you are shopping, skip the name game and seriously consider all contenders in the market.  Its very competitive and that can only be good news for the photography consumer.</p>

 

Rob in Toronto