Is this the time to leave Micro 4/3?

[harold_gough]

<p>Just to give some examples of how I mostly use my E-P2, with MF lenses and ambient light, look for my name as author here:<br>

<a href="http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=26">http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=26</a><br>

Not available online, I have wonderful scenic images (taken mostly with digital lenses) with blue skies, fluffy clouds and building details, all rendered much as I would get with film. Maybe a lifetime working with transparency film makes me instinctively more accurate with exposure (I use spot-metering a lot) than the users of print film or digital might be?</p>

<p> </p>

[DickArnold]

So I spent yesterday morning playing with four thirds, Nikon J1 and Sony Nex 5N at a big box store as they are close by. I then ordered a Sony Nex 5N elsewhere that I will pick up tomorrow while making some trades. I am trading a Canon 400d, battery grip and a couple of Canon lenses that I don't use. My primary kit is a 5D and four L lenses. I will keep that. I am just tired of lugging them around. I was really taken with the Nikon J1 but just couldn't abide the small sensor. My choice was made based upoon image quality (although I don't think the 18-42 may be the best for the sensor) and low light performance. I would like to be able to use ISO 3200 for some pictures and get useful images. I just got through looking at ISO 3200 samples from four different small bodies plus the 5n. The 5n with APS-c looked better. However, I don't know how much in-camera noise reduction was applied to the samples. As for lens size I agree with CC I would like the equivilent of a 50mm FF 1.8 pancade lens. After handling the cameras with the equivilent zooms I thought the difference in lens size with the 18-55 or equivilent zooms was not that great to be a factor for me. But, I am looking to the future when Sony adds other lenses. I also will buy the 45-200 or whatever it is. My last major camera purchase was the 5D which I now use a lot with the 24-105 L. What amazes me is the amount of technology and LCD stuffed into that little body compared to my 5D. However, for large prints I will obviously use the 5D. I really got acquainted with the salesman at the big box as he was lusting after the little Nikon and I wanted him to let me play with the little cameras under power for quite a long time. A lot of my photography these days is for the web where the little camera will suffice. When I go out to shoot fall foliage or other landscapes I will still have to carry a thirty pound bag and a tripod but the sony ought to be a lot of fun and it's cheaper than my secret desire to rebuild an old Porsche 911.

[DickArnold]

This is the first time I have strayed from Canon since 1988. Maybe it says something about where technology is headed and maybe I will regret it if Canon enters this genre. Although there are lens adapters for Canon lenses I don't envision using my 100-400 on this little body. I see that to adapt the Nex 5n to Canon the lens adapter has to have its own aperture as Canon lenses set exposure electronically and only come off the camera wide open. If you don't get an external aperature there are simple adapters that let you shoot wide open only on the 5n.

[richard_bach1]

<p>Thanks for all the responses everyone, you've really given me a lot to think about!</p>

<p>I guess for now I'll be holding on to my m43 gear and think about supplementing it with a full sized system. It's not the cheapest way to go but at least I'll be getting the best of both worlds.</p>

<p>The more I think about it NEX just doesn't seem right for me. while I understand this is pretty much a physical limitation, the big lenses (and lack of a full line) are the real killer for me. I just don't see it as too much of a size advantage. I might as well have a full sized SLR at that point and have access to a lot more lenses and no compromises on features.</p>

<p>So my Panasonic gear is here to stay for video, travel, and anything where I might need to pack light. And this way I'll still have my foot in the door when (or if) m43 really starts to mature and become a viable alternative to APS-C.</p>

<p>When money comes around I'll start building a small Canon system for when Image quality is imperative. I had one in the past and it never disappointed me anyway. Who knows, maybe a 5d will be in my future as they seem to be ever dropping in price.</p>

<p>Anyway, Thanks for the responses. I feel more settled now haha.</p>

 

[richard_bach1]

<p>As a technical side, I went full on gear nerd and took some controlled test shots with different film modes yesterday.</p>

<p>I shot a scene with blown out whites and deep shadows that gradated into each other to test dynamic range and get a handle on the highlight rolloff for each film mode. This was all done in raw with ACR.</p>

<p>What I found was pretty interesting:</p>

<p>1. That the film modes DO effect even raw images, at least when opened in ACR. I suspected this because the lens corrections still show in raw images. Certainly something to be aware of.</p>

<p>2. The nostalgia mode has visibly more dynamic range AND a smoother transition into highlights that rest. I could see this on my screen and when putting it through curves torture tests. Too bad it gives a bit of a warmer look by underexposing the blue channel, but this may actually help DR in scenes with blue skies. I'll definitely be using this more often.</p>

<p>3. The cinema mode (which I had been using the whole time) has by far the worst DR, highlight transition, and highlight clipping. This is rather confusing to me, as I thought it was some sort of fake linear color space sort of deal like really video cameras have (which are in place solely to protect highlights and give a film like shoulder). Silly me.</p>

<p>Anyway, what I took away from this is that I never had my camera properly set up for the most DR I could get, in fact I has it setup for the opposite it seems. I'm excited for a good shooting day to test this in the real world. Maybe then I'll feel better about my Panasonic system…</p>

[craig_martin2]

<p>I think the real problem with micro 4/3 is the lenses. Yeah, shoot me. Lately, however, some of the lenses coming are very good to great quality and the images improve based on that. The kit lenses are still kit lenses. I think the sensor is fine. i bit better would be nice, but it isn't a big deal. I think it is a bigger deal to pixel peepers than to image printers. I have some camera calibrations for my lowly E-PL2 ORFs that I use in Lightroom and they help a lot. Much better start than the jpgs to me.</p>

<p>I think if the Micro line had some zooms that were optical and build equivalents to the big 4/3 brothers 12-60 and 50-200 then it would be even better system. I don't really think that micro needs a 35-100 f/2 lens or something like that, but they need better zooms than the 14-45mm kits.</p>

<p>But i can see some wanting to leave the system, but if they leave for another "micro" or "mirrorless" system, i can see them being that much more satisfied overall.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>If you worry about the IQ too much, your photo isn't good enough, I say.</p>

[frode_inge_helland]

<p>I have just bought a EP-3 with the normal kit lens, EV2 and an FT to MFT adapter. I have not enough experience with the kit lens to have an opinion about it.<br>

But I have an E-30 with 11-22, 14-42, 50, 12-60, 40-150, 70-300. The workhorses are the 12-60 and 70-300, but on EP-3 they are a little heavy, so I tried the 40-150 and was amazed to se how it could perform on the EP-3. It also fits and handles nicely on EP-3. (The high grade lenses do not balance well on EP-3 due to their heavier construction.)<br>

Usually i carefully select and buy a camera and keep it for 5 years before I begin to look for a new one. So far I do not feel that I have been lacking too far behind in the meantime. There will always come a better camera around. It does not worry me much. Most of the today's digital cameras are so good that it is hard to go wrong whatever you buy. The differences in performances are so small that I consider the problems mostly to be in the mind of the photographer.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>“Is this the time to leave Micro 4/3?”</p>

<p>I would leave m4/3 in a microsecond if someone designed a compact camera that complied with my long list of specifications. Until that day, I will continue to use my m4/3 and my digital SLR to capture the images I need.</p>

<p><a href="

<div></div>

[claudinho]

<p>I think you could try an EP-3 or the first Oly m4/3 pro like if one day is produced.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>I am quite happy with my Panasonic GH2 as a light travel camera/ Maybe I have shallow expectations regarding sensors. I find Olympus colors and Panasonic colors meet my needs. Sensors, like microprocessors and software will always come out with something better. I satisfy easily I guess. Do I still use my E-1 with its 9 year old 5.1 Kodak sensor? You betcha. When I want bigger guns I haul out the E-3. Also a nice piece of work. I am inclined to like the format 4:3 as well.....gs</p>

[DickArnold]

So I took delivery on my Sony NEX 5n with 18-55 lens. It was a beautiful morning this morning and I shot with great light. I am stunned be the sharpness of a couple of 100 per cent crops in CS5 at 100 ISO. The menus are somewhat confusing and the battery life is shorter than my 5D considerably. I am taking my 5D to shoot a swimming meet along with the 5n. I need to use a 70-200 2.8L. There sure is a major difference in size. A couple of pictures on the 5n at ISO 6400 looked web usable. I am excited about usable images from such a small instrument.

[kbg32]

<p>I have been very happy with my Panasonic G1 and GF1. </p>

<p>

[ken_max__parks]

<p>Every photography has his/her likes and dislikes. I’ve been shooting with Olympus since 1976 starting with the OM-2 and currently with the E3 and E-30. When Olympus introduced the E-5, I knew that the days of competing with the big boys, Nikon and Canon had come to a close. </p>

<p>For my part, I reasoned to go with better resolution, less digital noise, and low-light photography. I knew that the E-5 was not going to satisfy my needs for wedding and portrait photography. Olympus had failed to produce, and this is due to the design flaw of the 4/3 sensor; it has limitations.</p>

<p>It was a turning point. For nearly 6 months of viewing and testing Nikons and Canons, I finally made the decision to take the leap of faith --- I bought a Canon 7D, and it has surpassed anything the Olympus designers have set before us serious photographers. Albeit, the E-3 and E-30 are getting less usage. And, a backup was purchased recently, a used Canon 40D. And all new lenses purchased in the past year or so have only been for the Canon system, with the concept of making a duplicate to the Olympus system, including flash units.</p>

<p>The Olympus micro 4/3 may do well in the consumer market, but for me, I’ve gone professional and need something with more umph! I was hoping before the intro of the E-5 that Olympus was going to give us prosumers a model that would deliver and rectify some of the weak points of the previous models. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen.</p>

<p>Now Olympus is faced with internal struggles that may cause the company to falter. As Jerry Seinfeld would say, “That’s a shame!”</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>Well, I need to take something back, the kit lens on the E-PM1 is rendering exceptably sharp images. However, I have to switch from Stabilization mode 1 to 3 (haven't tried 2). That said, I need some faster glass so I'm not shooting 5.6.</p>

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>I find that my EP-2 gives good portraits but that scenic images look mediocre. I may make it my portraits snapshot camera for family photos. Using good film with a nice Zeiss or Leica lens is somehow different looking.</p>