Considering switching to Micro 4/3rds

[harold_gough]

<p>The last reply reminded me of a really annoying feature of the VF-2 with the E-P2. (I presume similar characteristics apply to other Olympus m4/3).<br>

When shooting field macro (1:1 or thereabouts) the live view (possibly only with boost, but so what?) grossly exaggerates contrast. If a leaf, with an insect of interest on it, is partly shaded and partly sunlit the latter often looks burned out. This is not the case in the saved image but is extremely distracting and discouraging and there is no excuse for it.</p>

[zml]

<p>Harold: Yeah, but not only with macro. The brightness/contrast/saturation in the EVF change often in artificial (or simply uneven) light. It brings a whole new meaning to the word "previsualization"...One not only has to "previsualize" the final picture after PP, but also how the scene is going to look on "film" (sensor) because it is often impossible to tell while looking through the EVF. I simply keep both eyes open while framing, to see the original scene and its image in the EVF, but that gives me vertigo :-)</p>

[davidfarquhar]

I switched. Ditched a Canon 400d, 17-55 2.8, 70-300 and various primes. Absolutely loving it, don't miss the old gear very often

 

Be careful if you want telephoto and (implied) good continuous AF. I don't find the OM-D as good as my 400d for C-AF. However its single AF is so fast it almost makes up for it

 

For me all the other benefits more than make up for that one issue

[howardfuhrman]

<p>I shoot with Panasonic G3, have a variety of good lenses and get satisfying results. Many of the prior contributors to this thread have expressed their opinions why m4/3 is and bad. I suggest that you take a look at photos taken with an OMD in the following thread and determine based whether the camera and lenses available are capable of producing the results that you want in a smaller and lighter package than your DSLR and competitive mirrorless cameras.<br>

Good luck in your decision.<br>

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/4-3rds-cameras/36866-fun-olympus-omd.html</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>People used to say that full frame was bad when they compared result with MF/LF :-)</p>

[ryanjoseph]

<p>I ordered a OMD with the 14-42 kit lens. I won't jump much in past that. I guess I will see if Micro 4/3rds is for me once I get.</p>

[harold_gough]

<p>"People used to say that full frame was bad when they compared result with MF/LF"<br>

Mostly people who didn't know what they were talking about. A lot of those were magazine editors. Magazines don't use even all the detail in a 35mm film frame. David Bailey, the iconic photographer, used to shoot all his work on 35mm, for the flexibility, and then copy them onto medium format to keep editors happy. I once had a 35mm image, on fine grain film, used across front and back covers of a company magzine.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Yes on my latest visit to the airport I found a wall image obviously taken with full frame and enlarged far far beyond its capabilities .... it was dreadful.</p>

[harold_gough]

<p>I understand that, when viewed from a paintbrush distance away, the pictures on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel look pretty poor! Every picture should have an ideal viewing distance.</p>

[dogbert]

<blockquote>

<p>I understand that, when viewed from a paintbrush distance away, the pictures on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel look pretty poor! Every picture should have an ideal viewing distance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed, except the trouble is people may start out looking at an image at sensible distance but will invariably move closer to see more detail until either the image falls to mush or their eyes can focus any closer. So photographers need to expect than photos they produce will be viewed from 20cm if they can.</p>

<p>Ryan<br>

Congratulations on you purchase. I have enjoyed getting into M4/3 myself due to its portability. But I do find it fiddly and agree with many of the comments about it being a frustrating system. I have kept my Canon gear for those times when I want to work quickly or when I want the best possible IQ.</p>

[ryanjoseph]

<p>Sadly I had to return the camera to Amazon. When it came in to the country I was informed that it classified as both a video camera and still camera, and that I would have to pay 60 percent tax on it. Gotta love government taxes.</p>

[harold_gough]

<p>Outrageous! Even the UK government would not pull that one! That would apply to most current digital cameras.</p>

[mike_mcculley]

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=499641">Bruce Rubenstein</a> , Jul 31, 2012; 07:16 a.m.<br>

RE: I have no use for AF (adds useless bulk/weight to lenses)<br>

Photo.net; the last bastion of wooden ships and iron men.</p>

<p>VERY FUNNY. . . & . . . On target. . . including myself<br>

</p>