m4/3 vs all other formats

[kylebybee]

<p>There is a lot of buzz around the internet about the new 4/3 mirror less cameras. Some "Pro's" even saying that this format is possibly the death of the DSLR. The new upcoming Panasonic GH4, Olympus OMD-EM1, Sony a7, a7r (these aren't 4/3) seem to be the ones making a challenge to the FX and APSC DSLR's. I shoot with the Nikon D7000 and like it, my wife has the Sony a77 and I like it also. In the future I want to get a second body, and these mirror less cameras are intriguing me with their IQ and weather resistance and light weight. I know that having two different brand cameras wouldn't preferable for obvious reasons, so what is the consensus view, should I sell the D7000 and lenses, for smaller lighter 4/3's or just add to it?<br>

Oh you might ask what type of shooting do I do, well...all sorts. I do some sports (cycling), portrait, mostly landscapes. I would like to also get into off camera lighting, I as of now only have an SB800.</p>

[andreas_manessinger]

Kyle,

 

I did make the change from the D300 (still own it) and 20 lenses (all but three sold) to Micro Four Thirds. I began with a used Olympus E-P2 as a second camera, and soon switched to the OM-D E-M5 as my main body. Presently I have the OM-D E-M1 and I couldn't be more satisfied.

 

The number one factor for me was size and weight. I currently have two bags, one small one for when I use the E-M1 with the superb 12-40/2.8 PRO, and a second bag for when I shoot with one of my primes (12/2.0, 17/1.8, 25/1.8, 45/1.8 and 75/1.8), the 9-18mm zoom or the cheap 40-150mm.

 

The first kit weighs under 1kg, the second under 1.5kg. Basically the more lenses you have, the bigger is the advantage over DSLRs or mirrorless systems with bigger sensors. Image quality is excellent and while some systems with bigger sensors offer less noise, Olympus 5-axis sensor stabilization allows me to shoot at much slower speeds and lower ISOs. Of course this does not apply to action shooting, but I don't do that.

 

The E-M1 has a much improved continuous AF mode, but it you rely on C-AF, I'd say you'd better keep your DSLR. Mirrorless is not yet there.

 

Using the primes, DOF is shallow enough for me and the difference to APS-C is not that big. If you're after extremely shallow DOF, you should consider full-frame though.

 

The electronic viewfinder of the E-M1 is a big improvement over the optical in the D300.

 

Like everything in life it's a compromise. For me size, weight, quality and price are perfect, YMMV.

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I think MFT is too small a format to compete with FX DSLRs; the image quality is not really in the same ball park. When it comes to DX, the difference between MFT and DX is not as large, and for some lenses MFT images may be very competitive, e.g. I have a 25/1.4 Leica/Panasonic and I find it very, very good. So if you're generally happy with the image quality from your DX cameras, MFT may be a bit more noisy sensor-wise but the prime lenses for it are a lot more compact and some of them are very nice (DX DSLRs don't have any compact fast wide angle primes).</p>

<p>MFT has some clear advantages, namely the face-recognition tracking works very well so the camera can be given to a non-photographer who will immediately be able to get some shots with it using the automatic features of the AF. This is true even with the 25/1.4 wide open, the equivalent of which in DSLR domain probably couldn't be used wide open successfully without at least a little practice. So MFT is a good portable system that is easy to get started with, but the SNR of Nikon DSLRs, especially FX, goes beyond what MFT can do, and with FX and the extensive Nikon lens lineup there are so many options for the advanced user and for specialized applications.</p>

<p><em>I do some sports (cycling), portrait, mostly landscapes. </em><br>

<em><br /></em>I have the suspicion that an advanced MFT camera such as the EM1 might work for cycling, but e.g. the D7100 is likely to be better in terms of focus tracking a fast approaching subject, especially with a fast telezoom like the 70-200/2.8. For portraits I think either would work, but if you were to move to FX you could get the option of separating the subject of a full body or 2/3 portrait with shallow depth of field with wide angles or normal lenses and not only teles. For landscapes the Nikons give somewhat better dynamic range than MFT cameras so the shadows look less noisy and you can adjust the images more. But if you're doing a lot of hiking, maybe you would like to have a very portable and compact camera system for those situations, which would suggest augmenting your Nikon system with MFT. I think any of these applications would be possible to do with MFT but the results may not be better and I think when you're investing money into gear, the underlying idea should be that the resulting images would have to be improved or you should be able to do something that you can't do before the investment. I can't really say what the answer to that is; my suspicion is that staying with Nikon your cycling photography might benefit from it but obviously the MFT cameras will let you travel with a smaller and lighter bag.</p>

<p><em>I would like to also get into off camera lighting, I as of now only have an SB800.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I am unfamiliar with the Olympus flash system, but with a radio trigger on the hot shoe you should be able to use most flashes as manual remotes. If you want automatic (TTL) operation then Nikon has a well established system for that (the SB-800 is a very capable member of it). I tend to use TTL flash when I'm bouncing my on-camera flash light, and sometimes also with a remote flash that is on a stand with a shoot through umbrella in some (upper) corner of the room to provide some fill or key light in a situation where the subject can move about freely in the room, the TTL feature helps with adjusting the flash output automatically to compensate for changes in the distance between the flash and the subject. Other than that, with more complicated (multi-flash) setups I tend to use manual flash but usually I just use one flash and ambient light.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I have tried a few, thinking that the smaller size of the whole outfit would be beneficial.</p>

<p>Couldn't stand the way they handled. For SLR-type shooting, they don't cut it...</p>

<p>For vacation photography and "serious casual" they totally rock. I'm more "serious casual" than anything, so I was actually hoping the new Fuji stuff would make me happy, so I went and tried it.</p>

<p>non-SLR viewfinders are just horrible to me. Can't stand using them, makes it hard to take a photo. And an on-camera LCD is worse.</p>

[bruce_rubenstein]

<p>All else being equal (same generation sensor technology), a µ4/3 camera will not have the same technical image quality as a FF sensor camera. It doesn't matter if the sensor is wrapped in a SLR or mirrorless body. </p>

<p>If you can create really good visual images, then you can get away with pretty mediocre gear. That's because a really striking image distracts a viewer from fixating on the technical minutia.This explains why so many people spend so much money on gear; you can't buy talent.</p>

<p>I hardly ever use my D7000 or DSLR gear anymore, because I'm all in on µ4/3. Why? Because I enjoy shooting with it more. I take a camera with me more often, take more pictures and work at being a better photographer. I make 12" x 16" prints, frame them and hang them on the walls. If it's a visually compelling image, a FF camera wouldn't have made it any better.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I know that having two different brand cameras wouldn't preferable for obvious reasons, so what is the consensus view, should I sell the D7000 and lenses, for smaller lighter 4/3's or just add to it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can't tell you what you should be doing - maybe it helps though to describe what I do and what my thinking is. There are a few factors that motivated me to expand my DX system into both FX and mirrorless and that soon might lead me to sell most of the DX lenses (keeping one body to use with the 80-400G for bird and air show photography). </p>

<p>The OM-D E-M1 is the first m4/3 that tempts me - but as Andreas pointed out - AF-C isn't there yet for my main application. Fast (f/0.95) address the issue of photographing with shallow DOF - even though these lenses limit you to manual focusing and barely get you into WA territory. The lack of fast UWA lenses is also an issue; 7-14/4 is wide but not particularly fast - and the DOF is equivalent to f/8 on FX.</p>

<p>Some inherited Leica M lenses prompted me to purchase a NEX 6 last year and even though the focal lengths weren't optimal on the crop sensor camera, the small size of the entire system was very satisfying; a few days ago I traded that body for a Sony A7 when the opportunity arose to get one at a $500 discount. I had added a Voigtlander 21/4 to my 35/2 and 90/2 lenses last fall - and now will try to make do with that three lens kit (possibly upgrading the 21/4 to the 21/1.8) for my casual shooting - for which I normally would have resorted to using a DX body with 10.5, 35, 11-16, 16-85, 70-200 (I might add the Nikon Series E 75-150/3.5 to the mirrorless bag if I need the additional reach). It is possible and even likely, that this DX system will be up for sale once Nikon releases the D7100 successor (there's little chance that a D400 will ever see the light of day). For those times when I need AF in my casual shooting, my FX system consisting of one UWA zoom and a few primes will have to be sufficient and I fully expect them to be. So moving out of DX for me also means mostly giving up on zooms - which I find either too slow (16-85 is f/5.6 at the long end) or too heavy and unwieldy for everyday use (cue in 70-200/2.8).</p>

<p>In short, Nikon's failure to produce a suitable set of DX primes and their introduction of the 16-35/4 VR moved me into FX; I only need a high-end DX body to have "additional reach" for my bird and air show photography. Experimenting with the NEX 6 (and now the A7) and some manual focus lenses proved very satisfying; and while none of the current native E-mount lenses are tempting - there is the possibility that future releases this year and the next might induce a shift away from Nikon FX. One such lens could be the rumored Zeiss 16-35/4 OSS for the A7; just like the Nikon 16-35 got me into FX, the Zeiss lens might get me out of it eventually. I don't find EVFs all that convincing (yet) and certainly not better than a good optical one in an SLR - but they have their advantages too.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Two years ago, I reviewed the Olympuc E-PL3 for photo.net: <a href="/equipment/olympus/pen/e-pl3/review/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/olympus/pen/e-pl3/review/</a></p>

<p>At that time I wasn't very impressed by Micro 4/3 and mirrorless. Hopefully things have improved quite a bit in the two years since, but I still done like the EVF (which the E-PL3 didn't have). There is still a bit of delay which can be critical in action photography, and the electronic viewfinder still cannot handle high-contrast situations very well. When there is blown highlight, the EVF simply gets washed out.</p>

<p>Given that Olympus has a lot of financial problems (as far as I know, they are still losing money on cameras year after year, clearly not a sustainable situation) and had some major management scandles, I would much rather not bet on Olympus/Micro 4/3.</p>

<p>Currently I have no mirrorless camera. If I have to choose, it would be between Sony and Fuji. The problem with Sony is that their lenses for the A7 and A7R are crazily expensive and selection is limited, and I don't like using adapters with non-native lenses.</p>

[SCL]

<p>I like the M4/3 for the flexibility it offers in using a lot of legacy lenses. Yes it has lots of nice features, but it also has some I'm not fond of...such as needing to turn it on to see my subject, and the overly complex menu systems - which offer a little bit of something for everybody. The EVF, with 14x enlargement on my camera, is great for sharp focusing, but I would much prefer either an optical RF or a mirror optical (yes I know that defeats the mirrorless mantra). Personally I think current technology represents mostly consumer grade output rather than professional output. It is great for internet sharing, but the image quality I've seen isn't up to significant enlargements....yet. Depending on your needs...you could go whole hog and have a blast and maybe it would be a viable long term system, but I'm not yet convinced that will be the case.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>hmm, well, i've recently started using the Fuji XE1 and x100 i like them a lot. i was starting to get serious back pain from lugging my FX rig, and the DX gear was still too big to take everywhere. there are some tradeoffs, but image quality isn't one of them. my suggestion is try it out and see what speaks to you and your style of shooting. the Fuji system is great, but in-body stabilization so far is only found on m4/3. i wouldnt recommend selling the DSLR unless you are sure you dont need it anymore, though.</p>

[nikofile]

<p>I tried m4/3 a couple of years ago, several of them, and I did not see a lot of improvement over large sensor compact cameras. I just recently tried the Fuji X-E2 (APSC). The build quality was pretty bad, in that the front and back halves of the bottom end cap didn't even line up, and the top cap was mal-formed on the ends. It was very convenient with the little 27mm pancake (excellent and useful), but I just had the feeling it would not stand up to normal use for more than a year.</p>

<p>As mentioned above, a well conceived image doesn't need IQ. But there are so many family/friend photos that are saved and cherished based strictly on IQ and subject separation. You can get it all with a D600/610, and at the price of a D600 with a couple of decent primes I don't see a competitive alternative.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>there are some tradeoffs, but image quality isn't one of them.</em></p>

<p>I disagree on this. The D800 gives much better image quality than e.g. the X100s (ok, the earlier X100 may have better image quality since the original variant of the Fuji sensor doesn't have space allocated to PDAF sensors) which I used for a little over half a year. The X100s has worse dynamic range at base ISO than the D800 (making the results in the bright sunlight of summer appear close to those made with a compact camera in that the shadows are noisy, very distracting) and the high ISO (6400) images appear overprocessed to the degree that humans and mannequins/dolls cannot be distinguished from the texture on the skin. In fact the image quality was the big disappointment I had with the camera, along with the lack of useable tracking of moving subjects (only the center point can do AF-C). I would estimate the Fuji sensor may be 5-7 years behind Nikon in image quality at the same sensor size, depending on whether we focus on low ISO (where Nikon is way ahead) or high ISO image quality (at intermediate ISOs, the Fuji was ok). The AF wasn't reliable, either. I got a lot of erroneusly focused results in indoor available light. There is a lot of hype about the accuracy of mirrorless camera AF, but my experience wasn't positive in any sense of the word.</p>

<p>What I liked about the X100s were that it is very, very quiet, has the ability to flash sync at high speeds, and it does have the optical viewfinder which made the camera useable to me. And it is compact and will let you focus on most parts of the frame if the subject stays still. But without competitive image quality and autofocus tracking, and with the obscure X-Trans color filter array pattern, it just wasn't the camera for me. The buttons of the X100s are too small for me, and the AF point selection process is slow compared to Nikons. I like the E-PL5 + 25/1.4 much better by the way. The Olympus AF works very well on static subjects and can find faces and the main subject super quickly. Although that too has too small buttons.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I just recently tried the Fuji X-E2 (APSC). The build quality was pretty bad, in that the front and back halves of the bottom end cap didn't even line up, and the top cap was mal-formed on the ends.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>seriously, Roy? you must have gotten a defective unit. my XE1, which has a metal body, has better build than my d90, or any plastic DSLR, for that matter. the 18-55 kit lens is metal, the primes are metal too. i would actually rate build quality as one of the plusses of the Fuji system.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You can get it all with a D600/610, and at the price of a D600 with a couple of decent primes I don't see a competitive alternative.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>mm-hmm. okay. the d600/d610--which also has a plastic build--has great IQ, but if all you need is a camera/lens combo which will do subject isolation, you can't beat the form factor of an XE body with the fuji 35/1.4, which has excellent IQ. that combo is currently much less than the body-only cost of a d600 alone. i wouldn't use it for action or sports, but for "family/friend photos" all the way up to portraits and fine art, it's not only competitive, but extremely competent. Not trying to get into a pissing match here over brand loyalty, but IMO it's very liberating to get so much functionality in a smaller form factor. my D3s+50/1.4 weighs a ton and is quite bulky; the fuji system weighs next to nothing and fits in a small bag. the fuji is great at high ISOs too.</p>

[cc_chang1]

<p>I am another old time Nikon shooter that now mostly use m4/3, for which I have GH1 and E-PL5 camera, and a whole bunch lenses, 20/1.7, 45/1.8, 12-35/2.8, and 14-140/4.5-5.6. I still keep my D90 and a basic set of lenses (Sigma 17-50/2.8, Sigma 50/1.4, and Nikon 85/1.8) and a SB600 flash. I also keep the Sigma 50-150/2.8, not b/c I use it for photography but b/c it is very useful for videoing my kids performing on stage using my m4/3 cameras.</p>

<p>The sensor in the newer m4/3 cameras are slightly better than the one in D90 and may be close to the one in D7000. By measurement, it is about one stop inferior to the one in D7100, let alone those in the FX cameras, but it is more than <strong>good enough</strong> for me, and for apparently many photographers, including many pro photographers. I also like the fact that its sensor is 16 MP, as opposed to 24MP, which is just too big for me (and my computers and storage) without offering any critical benefits. With the 20/1.7 lens, and the spectacular face detection, my m4/3 kit can easily photograph my kids in the house, day and night, in the museum and restaurants. Both of my m4/3 cameras have a tillable screen which allows me to photograph my kids (5 and 3) at their eye levels. With most of these casual family events, the dSLR kit is just too cumbersome and "flashy" and does not work as well (no articulated screen). When we travel, the size advantage of the m4/3 kit becomes even more dramatic. The total weight of E-PL5, 20/1.7, and 12-35/2.8 would weigh about the same as the D7000 body alone.</p>

<p>I still keep the Nikon kit in case the next generation of Dx cameras are "revolutionarily" in some way so I can still use all my lenses. I can use all Nikon lenses on the m4/3 with an adapter, and the 85/1.8 is very useful for low light videos. I also use the Nikon when I need the flash. My m4/3 cameras are small now so I worry that they may not balance well with a big flash. However if I ever get a dSLR-like m4/3 camera, I will sell the SB600 and learn how to use those from the m4/3.</p>

<p>To reduce the size of your gear, you can also go with the mirrorless APSC systems, such as those from SONY and Fuji. I did not go with the APSC system in general because while they can make small camera bodies, their lens will always be much bigger than those from the m4/3. SONY's lens collection is still mediocre and with the addition of the EF mount, I worry that they are stretched too thin. My problem with the Fuji is cost and the videos, the quality of which is not adequate as compared to those of the m4/3.</p>

<p>What should you do? Keep in mind that we live in a world that you do not have to swear royalty to a particular brand so why not try out the m4/3 in a small step. Get a camera and a walk around prime lens, such as 20/1.6, 17/1.8, or 25/1.8, and see if you like it. If you do, at that point, you will be more familiar with the system to make better decision.</p>

[kylebybee]

Thank you evryone for your input. Since I like my D7000 so much and the pictures it gives me, I'll keep it. I purchased a

Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for my wife's a77 and she has a hard time carrying it around. Maybe I should look at a a99 so as not

to let that lens go to waste, I 'd really like to trade it for a Nikon mount Sigma 50-150 f/2.8, but it's so new that I still would

loose by selling or trading.

[john_narsuitus]

<p>My micro 4/3 is better than my digital SLR when I need to...<br />1.Shoot quietly.<br />2.Shoot without drawing much attention.<br />3.Shoot movies (my digital SLR does not do movies).<br />4.Shoot with image stabilization (my SLR does not have this feature built into the body).<br />5.Shoot at my longest focal length.<br />6.Carry a light photographic load.<br />7.Compose using the LCD.<br />8.Capture images with a greater depth-of-field.<br />9.Avoid vibrations due to mirror slap.<br />10.Blend in with the tourists.</p>

<p>My digital SLR is better than my micro 4/3 when I need to...<br />1.Be prepared to shoot any type of subject.<br />2.Project a professional image.<br />3.Shoot fast moving subjects.<br />4.Shoot in dim light.<br />5.Shoot with a high firing rate.<br />6.Manually focus.<br />7.Capture images with a shallower depth-of-field.<br />8.Shoot with a built-in flash.<br>

<br /> </div>

[Robin Smith]

<p>As a comment - why is that when you see comparisons such as the above, the DSLR always seems to have a grip attached - which makes it look even bigger? Here the L plate also adds to the size. It is a little misleading. Another ruse is to show the DSLR with a 24-70 f2.8 and compare it to a mirrorless with a normal prime lens.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I disagree on this. The D800 gives much better image quality than e.g. the X100s (ok, the earlier X100 may have better image quality since the original variant of the Fuji sensor doesn't have space allocated to PDAF sensors) which I used for a little over half a year.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ilkka, i wasn't suggesting the Fujis have better IQ than a d800, which is currently only bested by the Sony A7r ;) ... and if you're going to use a d800 as a walkaround camera, sure, you're going to get the best possible resolution and dynamic range blah blah blah. But... the d800 isnt ideal as a walkaround camera. it's too big, the files are too big, it's recommended best use is with a tripod, etc., etc. Also, can you fit a d800 in a jacket pocket? Last night i was walking around, shooting in the Mission District of San Francisco on a rainy night with the XE1 and 27mm pancake, which easily fits into a parka. For street photography, a d800 is overkill in most, if not all, situations.</p>

<p>What i <em>was</em> saying is that the Fuji IQ is damn good for the size, certainly better than m4/3 and certainly as good or better than a d7000, although its all relative to intended use and what you're going to do with the files after you capture the image. My x100 and XE1 files are comparable or better, IQ wise, to my Nikon DSLRs, including the D3s -- which i mainly use with top-end lenses like the 24-70, 70-200, and sigma 35/1.4. i'm not really seeing a huge difference if any in noise between the d3s and XE1 at high-ISO. i dont have a 24mp or 36mp camera, but even though those high-MP bodies should give you a theoretical advantage, in real-world usage, as CC pointed out, the differences are actually quite minimal. Once you factor in the added weight of lugging around pro lenses, the bar starts to sway toward the more compact setups. Compared to DX, when you look at the lens selection, Fuji does have a wide-angle prime, pancakes, portrait lenses, and other high-end APS-C lenses which satisfy the segment Nikon abandoned. YMMV, but for me its liberating to take a lighter bag (or no bag at all) and get essentially the same functionality.</p>

<p>That said, let me reiterate that there are still some things i will choose the DSLR rig for. The Fuji AF has gotten faster, but still lags behind DSLRs and is certainly not on the level of a D3s. If fast AF is critical, i'm taking a DSLR. There's a few lenses that Fuji doesnt make, too. And of course Nikon has more exotics and specialty lenses. Im seriously eying the XT1 and the upcoming 2.8 zooms from Fuji, which may be a better fit for my needs than the current hybrid FX/DX system i have now. being able to take the same batteries and chargers in a bag clears bag space. A 2 body setup where the file sizes are the same is better for my workflow than differing MP counts. Also, the crop factor presents a condundrum when carrying both FX and DX bodies, e.g., with wide-angle lenses. Not to mention that my DX cameras are high-ISO challenged. And if i can reduce the overall size of the bag, my back will be much happier. But that's just me. Other people may have different needs.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Kyle, I really think you must be being deliberately controversial here and trying to wind people up. From your previous posts I suspect that you already know the many pros and cons of small versus larger formats: Depth-of-field, diffraction effect, magnification advantage, etc., etc.</p>

<p>There's room for many types and formats of camera, and it's simply a case of choosing the right tool for the job. However, if I need the advantages of a tiny sensor, small and lightweight body, EVF, 4:3 ratio and silent operation, then I have a couple of bridge cameras to choose among - these have cost me in total about the same as just one low-ratio zoom lens for the 4/3rds (of not a lot) format.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I don't see one format supplanting all the others, and I certainly don't see DSLRs dying anytime soon. For most of us, a FF DSLR is not that heavy or inconvenient. That said, it is not ideal for all applications, nor for all persons.</p>

<p>I shoot a variety of formats. I own a variety of formats. I don't see the formats as mutually exclusive. It is a case of "both. . . and" rather than "either. . . or." There is no need to cast the issue as one format "versus" another, much less all others. I am pleased by the new developments. They offer us a lot of choices.</p>

<p>If one really wants to get pretty small without going down to the level of point-and-shoots, one might want to go a notch smaller than the micro-four-thirds format and try the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1009156-REG/Sony_DSCRX10_B_Cyber_shot_DSC_RX10_Digital_Camera.html"><em><strong>Sony RX10.</strong></em></a> A lot of people really like it, especially if they also like to have good video at their disposal.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[cc_chang1]

<p>Why is "mirrorless" APSC or m4/3 camera systems good enough for most:</p>

<p>Besides the point that Eric already made, I must also add that while FX/DX cameras have the advantage in high ISO performance, both Fuji and m4/3 have many fast primes to allow one to shoot at much lower ISO to partially compensate for the sensor performance. This is particularly true for those who use a kit slow zoom lens with a FX camera. If you use a fast FX lens, the cost and weight difference between, for example, a Nikon 24-70/2/8 and a Panasonic 12-35/2.8 with OIS are just ridiculous (and the latter has in lens stabilization, great for videos AND stills). Furthermore, while FX system makes it easier to achieve shallow DOF, this can become a problem when you need to get more stuff in focus, which forces you to stop down, causing the need to raise ISO and negating the advantage of FX at higher ISO. If you do want subject isolation, again, there are many m4/3 fast primes f1.8, f1.4, f1.2, or even f0.95, to compensate for the crop factors. With all of these considerations, it is hard to justify to carry around a FX camera plus the lens for traveling and casual shooting. Indeed, when I look at all the pictures that I like, those that I love tend to be the ones that capture the moment, regardless of which camera I use.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>At the pixel level, the newest m43 cameras provide pixel quality equivalent to Nikon's newest DX and FX sensors (exluding the D4 sensor). The advantage gained in the larger format sensors is through downsampling. But, state-of-the-art image processing software, DXO prime, for example, reduces the gap. Prints as big as 20" x 30" look great from uncropped M43 images. At the pixel level, Olympus' M43 cameras have higher resolution than the D800.</p>

<p>Addressing some of the points that John made:<br /> "My digital SLR is better than my micro 4/3 when I need to..."<br /> 1.Be prepared to shoot any type of subject.<br /> <em>Don't understand this one</em><br /> 2.Project a professional image.<br /> <em>Camera size does seem to matter</em><br /> <em>3.Shoot fast moving subjects.</em><br /> You can shoot fast moving subject with any camera<br /> <em>4.Shoot in dim light.</em><br /> M43 cameras have excellent fast glass that allow shooting in dim light with accurate AF<br /> <em>5.Shoot with a high firing rate.</em><br /> The OMD EM1 shoots at 10fps<br /> <em>6.Manually focus.</em><br /> Focus peaking on the OMD EM1 is IMHO better than any other type of manual focus system available for a digital camera.<br /> <em>7.Capture images with a shallower depth-of-field.</em><br /> Using the right lenses, this can be easily accomplished with a M43 system<br>

<em>8.Shoot with a built-in flash.</em><br>

<em>M43 cameras have these or have tiny, light weight flashes that slide onto the body do as good a job as any similar flash. There are small and light weight enough to leave on all the time.</em></p>

<p>Lenses are a very strong point for M43 cameras - they are exceptional.</p>

<p>A camera body/system to watch out for: The soon to be released Sony Alpha A600- DX size sensor, interchangeable lenses AND a body about the size of a P&S.</p>

<h1 id="title"> </h1>

[eric_arnold]

<p>another point, just to add on to what CC is saying, is that a true 'pro' setup is 2 bodies w/ a wide-angle and a telephoto, plus flashes, batteries, chargers. an FX two-body setup w/ 24-70 (or 17-35) +70-200, plus 2 pro-size or gripped bodies, plus accessories, plus low-light primes and/or additional lenses is around 25 or 30 pounds or even more and will kill your shoulders, neck and back over time if you have it in a shoulder bag. if you put it in a backpack, it's much harder to run and gun and one of the bodies will be have to be stored w/out attached lens. this type of approach works for event shooting, but not for candid photography, where you might look like a big touristy dork and/or a robbery target, depending on your surroundings.</p>

<p>OTOH, with pocketable cameras, it is quite easy to carry two bodies without attracting a lot of attention to yourself, and a much smaller gear bag.even two entry level m4/3 or Nex bodies can give you a lot of functionality if paired with the right lenses, say a wide prime and a tele prime.</p>

<p>Remember we are living in an age of mobile phones and social media, and people are constantly snapping iPhone pics and uploading them that are "good enough" for them b/c they are able to capture the moment. That has been a paradigm shift for the entire camera industry. Even when i cover events with the FX rig (D3s+24-70+70-200) these days, i've started taking the x100 for quick and easy candids. i have control over DoF with the 35mm equiv f/2 lens, reasonably good hi-ISO performance, excellent IQ, and a flash i can sync at 1/2000 if i need to, in a camera i can fit in a pocket. if all i need is a still shot for PJ stuff, i can leave the FX gear at home. Ultimately, it's not even about the gear, it's about what you plan to do with it.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>2.Project a professional image.<br /> <em>Camera size does seem to matter</em></p>

</blockquote>

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

forgot to mention the 24-70 and 70-200, when paired with an FX body, are excellent for scaring small children. seriously, it depends on the application. i dont necessarily always want to <em>look</em> like a professional. i do try to <em>act</em> like a professional however, which to me means having the right gear for the job at hand, organizing that gear efficiently, and getting the shots i need, especially if i'm getting paid to do it. but if i'm on my feet a lot, reducing the weight means less fatigue and wear and tear in the long run. in-between posts here, i ran out and shot some editorial photos with the x100 for a story i'm working on. (oh, yeah, with the dials on the x100 i can quickly set up my camera for shooting with a minimum of fuss, without even having to turn the camera on.) the finished article is going to have a mix of shots from the d3s, x100, and XE1, including some live-action shots with the XE1+35/1.4 combo, which is supposed to be "too slow" for action. <em><br /></em></p>

[nikofile]

<blockquote>

<p>seriously, Roy? you must have gotten a defective unit. my XE1, which has a metal body, has better build than my d90, or any plastic DSLR, for that matter. the 18-55 kit lens is metal, the primes are metal too. i would actually rate build quality as one of the plusses of the Fuji system.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, I was serious enough to take photos before returning it, just in case there was any questions. But I'm not here to embarrass Fuji or you. I just think you and others trivialize just how well Nikon builds consumer level DSLR bodies. A D90 is a rigid, substantial camera that can serve for many years. I think the D7100/D600 is even better. If you prefer Fuji, that's fine. It has some qualities.</p>

 

[kylebybee]

<p>No Joe I'm not trying to be controversial, sorry if it seems that way........</p>