Subjective Four Thirds Assessment

[wayne_murphy8]

<p>I have been photographing for lots of years, using film obviously, and printing both in darkroom, and later using scans, printing digitally. I have used Photoshop since 2003 for digital processing. I now print from digital files only.<br>

I have used most film high end film cameras and some good digital SLRs (Nikons). I sold my C sensor DSLRs because I was tired of the weight of the body plus lenses. Better than a Hasselblad to be sure, but still not light enough for me. Yes, I have compact digital cameras for fun, but they are not very good.<br>

I bought into the four thirds system and have upgraded, but the results disappoint me. Although the sensor is reasonably large and the resolution is now 16MP, The image quality seems not too good. Brittle highlights, crumbly tones and poor colour management.<br>

My fairly old and basic Nikon D700 seemed to give me better overall image quality than my brand new 16MP four thirds camera. Certainly, the processing was far easier and produced better prints, even from jpeg files.<br>

I am not a fan of Nikon. The opposite, in fact, because of the arrogant and poor customer service that I experienced.<br>

I put the image quality down to pretty average four thirds lenses compared to the high end lenses that I used previously but the difference seems to be more than that. I was hoping that the new Panasonic 12-35/2,8 might solve the problem, but I am unsure.<br>

Without starting a rant, is anyone else slightly disappointed with the promise of four thirds and the reality of quality? Maybe it's just me.</p>

<p> </p>

[wayne_murphy8]

<p>Sorry, the camera was actually a Nikon D70, almost an antique now. The image quality seemed better though, even then.</p>

[anthea50]

<p>Hmm, can you let us into the secret? Which four thirds camera are you talking about?</p>

[ronhartman]

<p>No Nikon experience here, but have Canon slr gear. Recently, I've primarily been using m4/3. I've had the GH2 for a while, and primarily shoot raw, as the jpeg awb and dynamic range seemed a bit lacking to me. The raw photos seem comparable to me to the Rebel cameras I've used. </p>

<p>More recently, I got the OMD, and find the jpegs much better, after turning down sharpening and saturation a bit. And the raw processing can bring out even more.</p>

<p>So, I don't know what m4/3 camera and lenses you are using and what post processing, but the IQ of the more recent m4/3 cameras are right up there with aps cameras.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

Don't forget the mirrorless cameras, for example the Sony NEX's. The 4/3 sensor is essentially what we used to call half

frame photography. The mirrorless cameras are often at least APS-C sensors but in a package at the same weight. The

existance of "full frame" 35mm cameras like the Minoxs and Rollei's are what helped to kill the original half frame

cameras like the Olympus Pens -- more image quality less weight. I'm not sure the comparison holds, but I can't help but

think that equivalent weight larger sensor might endanger the 4/3rds cameras too.

[GerrySiegel]

<blockquote>

<p>Brittle highlights, crumbly tones and poor colour management.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A little too subjective for me. No, I am not even slightly disapointed in images. I am, as an aside, disappointed in some 4/3 marketing decisions in my country. Like what is the deal with a "rebate" that comes after silly paperwork and in the form of a <em>Visa credit.</em> That reminds me of the discount pricing imbroglio a couple years back where the price remained the same or higher <em>after</em> the discount. ( But that is a rant of a different color.) <br /> Short answer to the question is "No, I have no quarrel with the tones, highlights or colors." I am not fussy on those scores or else I would have gone to another system by now. I have used Canon FD film cameras, Fuji and Kodacolor and Kodachrome and Bronica SQ medium format film for years and now all digital. gs</p>

[Mike Howard]

<p>I love m4/3's. Comparing m4/3's to APS-C at this time, new m4/3's holds up quite well, in a substantially smaller package, even compared to Sony. It all depends on what your needs are. I also shoot Pentax. My K-x with 21mm Limited is still WAY larger than my EPL-2 with pretty much any but the largest lenses. It is my favorite travel companion. Now for really traveling light, my Oly XZ-1 is my favorite. It's all in where I'm going, and what I'm shooting.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>My history is possibly similar to Waynes and I guess he is/was using a Pany G3 like myself. But I come to M4/3 from bridge cameras which I early on recognised as the 'digital camera' rather than a make-over of the SLR. In one small camera I more or less duplicated what I had with my SLR and five lenses. There ws one main deficiency, I couldn't use my extension tubes and bellows, so I bought a Canon DSLR, just the body, for that function.</p>

<p>I was immediately delighted at the results I got with the G3 kit lens, 014042, but quickly extremely frustrated at only 42 or 84AoV being used to 430AoV. So I bought the 014140 and have more or less what I had with my original Nikon 5700* but with up-to-date functions and 16Mp instead of 5Mp :-) So I now have the 'larger sensored bridge camera' ,which I asked for years ago on bliogs, which weighs about the same and feels very similar to my bridge camera. Not a lightweight P&S but about what a camera should weigh ... very subjective that :-)</p>

<p>The NEX may be a cousin of M4/3 but suffers from the weight problem of the DSLR, even the lighter APS-C, that while the body is small and light the lenses are 'big and heavy', the penalty you can say of having a larger sensor.</p>

<p>I have looked at Olympus and have the E-PL1 [ to use my legacy lenses on] but I am not impressed, and wonder what Panasonic's next offering will be, so long as it has a built in EVF.</p>

<p>*I rate this camera as the best digital I have owned, of about eight now, though rather dated these days, and I was very happy with my only dealing with the local Nikon agents when I had a problem with it.</p>

[harveysteeves]

<p>I disagree with the OP. As an owner of the D70, then D200 and the D300 and full-frame, my OMD is better than my APS cameras once I set the thing the way I want. I use different formats for different purposes and I would probably not carry my FX and MFD cameras in the same way as I would the OMD. Image quality wise, I am happy with my images as I recognize that the resolution and tonal range will not equal the larger cameras but I understand and accept those things. It is what I have software for.</p>

[wayne_murphy8]

<p>Thanks for the thoughtful responses. I didn't want to start a discussion on brands but I originally bought a Panasonic GF2 and now have a GH2, so my experience is limited to those bodies with the 14-45 and 45-200 lenses. I had a 20/1.7 but I wasn't very impressed with that either, so I must be too hard to please. I think that the new 12-35/2.8 might be the next step. <br>

My next step is to go back to raw and try that as a base for post processing, but I will need to upgrade from Photoshop CS2 for the GH2 raw converter. It's a shame that Nikon and Canon did not take up four thirds. That would have seen some real progress. Instead, they created their own weirdo formats to lock customers into their own lenses. <br>

Thanks again. </p>

[wayne_murphy8]

<p>Thanks for the thoughtful responses. I didn't want to start a discussion on brands but I originally bought a Panasonic GF2 and now have a GH2, so my experience is limited to those bodies with the 14-45 and 45-200 lenses. I had a 20/1.7 but I wasn't very impressed with that either, so I must be too hard to please. I think that the new 12-35/2.8 might be the next step. <br>

My next step is to go back to raw and try that as a base for post processing, but I will need to upgrade from Photoshop CS2 for the GH2 raw converter. It's a shame that Nikon and Canon did not take up four thirds. That would have seen some real progress. Instead, they created their own weirdo formats to lock customers into their own lenses. <br>

Thanks again. </p>

[keith selmes]

<blockquote>

<p>My next step is to go back to raw and try that as a base for post processing</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On a GH1, I have found some problems with the EVF, which is often excellent, but in some circumstances just rubbish. Some of this problem seems to be due to white balance adjustment, with the auto white balance not being that good. But I usually use raw, so the output on the computer can be markedly different, as well as easily adjusted. If you've been using jpeg, that could be part of the problem.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>have a GH2, so my experience is limited to those bodies with the 14-45 and 45-200 lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would expect those would be OK-ish, but rather soft and uninspiring.<br>

On my DSLR, I normally use a mix of Contax manual SLR lenses and Canon EF L grade.<br>

On my GH1, I have tried those, and a wide range of cheaper lenses. Looking back at past images, I have been surprised at the good quality of some, using the Contax lenses, which could have been from a DSLR. Others, taken with cheap cine lenses have been stunningly disappointing.<br>

Somewhere in between are lenses that produce really good or interesting results in the right circumstances, but are not generally going to be in the same ball park as the Contax lenses. So as you'd expect, when a camera can work with a wide range of lenses, you can get a wide range of results, and the quality SLR lenses still are quality lenses.<br>

However, reviews tell me the Panasonic 20/1.7 is a really good lens for this format, so it's surprising if that was not good enough.</p>

<p> </p>

[harold_gough]

<p>I have the E-P2. I use only RAW files. I find coloured/white pixilation on some bright highlights, such as shiny hairs on insects at 1:1 macro in sunlight.<br>

My issue is with the handling of the camera body, its buttons (in the way) and its awful menus.</p>

 

[jcuknz]

<p>Reads like Harold and I have similar grumbles with the Olypus approach :-)</p>

[ilkka]

<p>"equivalent weight larger sensor might endanger the 4/3rds cameras too."<br>

So far there is absolutely no proof of this happening. Camera system is more than just a body. Sony makes very small, and good, APS sesor compact cameras. But their lenses are DSLR size and huge in comparison. Apart from some pancake designs, it may well be impossible to make a selection of truly small, reasonably wide aperture lenses for APS size sensor cameras. And this is where m4/3 rules.<br>

Bigger sensor is always better. Newer sensor is also almost always better. When one chooses to use a m4/3 camera, or a similar small system, one accepts the disadvantage of a smaller sensor with the benefit of much smaller overall system size and weight. If this compromise is not acceptable, then one has to accept a much larger system, wtheter it is APS sized Sony NEX or a DSLR. Sensors get better over time. One can today accept a smaller sensor than just 2-3 years ago to give acceptable image quality for ones needs.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>My view is simmilar to Waynes. I find the IQ in the EPL2 to be not as good as my APS-C and FF dslr's. However, I find it an acceptable trade-off in many situations for a much smaller camera. I find the IQ perfectly acceptable up to 8x10 prints, but even at this size I find the larger formats are starting to show thier advantages.</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>Comparing 11 by 14 inch prints from my D5100 (far more advanced than the D70) to 13.5 by 18 inch prints from my GX1, it must be conceded that the Nikon has an edge in detail, but it would be wrong to claim the Panasonic shots are unpleasant or compromised. In fact they look very nice and in some ways less digital, more natural. </p>

<address>I wonder if you have yet to configure the JPG engine correctly? The first uploads I viewed were very disappointing as I was using the GX1 as if it was my D5100- with the kit lens it seemed to me that there were no advantages in shooting RAW, but only after doing some comparison shots. Now I set up I.R. to standard, set my NR & sharpness at +1 on picture settings. This has made a huge difference. Straight RAW shots with the kit lens are soft, mushy with little detail. I feel the GX1 (and possibly MFT in general?) is very dependant on in-camera processing </address>