m4/3 vs all other formats

[peter_petrov1]

<p>It is actually the opposite. The way to build strength and muscles is regular physical exercises. Taking pictures is usually for pleasure (and for some people, money). Complaining that the camera with which you would get a picture that satisfies you most is heavy is simply not serious. If it is below 5kg it should not be considered heavy for an adult person.<br>

To be on topic, personally I like the idea of having a small contemporary camera+lens that fits it the pocket of my jacket. Really don't care what brand it is, how much it weighs, or is it an EVIL, DSLR, or fixed lens camera. Pentax with their limited pancakes are really tempting. Then I look at the prices of m43 and similar stuff - most of it built to become obsolete in 2 years - and decide I would stay with my Nikon SLRs and I don't need new camera system.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I do agree that one of the greatest advantages in using dSLRs, FX dSLRs mounted with f2.8 zoom in particular, is to build strength and muscle.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>lol, i've built up some strong neck and arm muscles with my d3s, 24-70 and 70-200. but i also have some lower back issues and pinched nerves as a result. coming from a PJ perspective, i often have to be on my feet for long hours at a time, and i also dont always need absolute image quality, just a clean, publishable shot. i'm not trying to suggest there's only one way to take a photograph -- if Ilkka want to shoot street candids with a 200/2 handheld, well, bless him. if Andrew wants to take half of B&H with him on a day hike, it's no skin off my back. if CC is enjoying m4/3 for what he uses it for, fine by me. for me, the Fuji system seems worth investing into further. that doesnt mean i'll never buy another Nikon body or lens, just that right now i dont see a particular need to.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I've been looking around for a fast three prime lens setup (FX equivalents of 20-24, 35, 85/90/100) and their cost are almost independent of the system. I could get m4/3 with an M1 and a 12mm, 17mm, and 42.5mm or 45mm for about the same as a Fuji X-T1 with a 12 or 14mm, 18mm, and 56mm. With Sony NEX, I'd be missing out on the tele end but could likely make do with the three Zeiss Touit lenses; and with the A7/A7R I'd be missing out on all of them at this point (unless I forgo AF and chose, for example, Voigtlander 21, 35, and 75mm lenses (or if the sky's the limit, go for broke with Leica or Zeiss glass). Nikon and Canon DX - can't do it at all. A problem I wouldn't have with Pentax. FX could be done in a similar price frame - provided I go the lower priced route with a D610, 28/1.8 or 35/1.8 and 85/1.8 would leave me wishing for either a 20mm or 24mm AF-S lens. With FX, there is of course the option to spend a lot more than for any of the other systems by going towards the high-end with a D800E, 24/1.4, 35/1.4 and 85/1.4. It's a bit frightening, how similar Nikon's and Canon's lens systems are - what I can't do in one, I likely can't do in the other either.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I could get m4/3 with an M1 and a 12mm, 17mm, and 42.5mm or 45mm for about the same as a Fuji X-T1 with a 12 or 14mm, 18mm, and 56mm. (although i might go for the 23 over the 18 ;) )</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i would choose Fuji here, just on the basis of the bigger sensor in a still-compact body.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon and Canon DX - can't do it at all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this comment speaks volumes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>there is of course the option to spend a lot more than for any of the other systems by going towards the high-end with a D800E, 24/1.4, 35/1.4 and 85/1.4.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>let's say you do that, you have Ultimate Image Quality but a lot less portability (and all the negatives associated with a 36mp sensor). is that money well spent? maybe, if you're mainly doing fine art prints that you Blow Up Very Large. but who does that for everyday photography?</p>

<p>one thing i really like about the XE1 is the size. i'm actually considering getting another one for a ultra-compact, 2-body setup that i can use with primes or zooms depending on situation. very configurable to MY needs, not what some marketing department wants me to shoot with. today i shot with a d90+12-24 and an XE1+35/1.4. it all fit in a small bag. i biked over to a mural dedication wall and got all the shots i needed. i dont see where a larger kit would have been better in that case. in the future i will likely add the XT1 and the 14/2.8 to the arsenal, unless i just go for another XE1. as i said, it's all about modular connectivity in a system. i cant do that with my current hybrid FX/DX Nikon set up -- two different batteries, chargers, etc.-- as well as the size of the lenses and bodies.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>on the basis of the bigger sensor in a still-compact body</p>

</blockquote>

<p>given that the price differential isn't significant, and unless I absolutely need to have the smallest possible system (then I would have to look at Nikon 1 as well I suppose), I would also chose the bigger sensor. The three Zeiss Touit lenses are available for either Sony NEX or Fuji (which aside from these three offers the more compelling primes) and hence are not a deciding factor; thus I could see myself leaning towards Fuji here. Like a X-T1 with 14/2.8 and 56/1.2 and a X100S to fill the gap. Sony's E-mount lens system isn't in a very compelling shape IMO.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>is that money well spent?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I had just put that up for completeness to show that only FX gives you an option to go beyond the price range of the smaller-sized formats in my example. I certainly would only go that route if I really had the need for large size prints. Someone with enough money and the need for even larger prints may opt for the Leica S system instead (where my three prime setup is also possible) - but now we are definitely in the realm where portability isn't a priority. And we are talking a lot of money now.</p>

<p>I actually considered any mirrorless so far mostly from the perspective of adapting "legacy" glass. Beyond that, neither mirrorless format has enough lens selection to be considered as my only system. The 2x crop factor of the m4/3 system took it out of the equation almost immediately. DX was a manageable stop gap - but the A7 now offers FX "goodness" in this realm. Anything wider than 28mm requires either some very selective choosing among rangefinder lenses (and possibly still some additional post-processing) or to limit ones choice to larger SLR lenses. I realize that manual focusing is a major limitation for many though. Once Sony/Zeiss brings out some suitable AF prime lenses, I might add one or two to my bag (which might easily lead to some elimination from the Nikon bag).</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Belatedly... I've realised that my definition of a "big camera" is biased by what I've been carrying around. For most people, I suspect a D7000 looks like a serious bit of kit; the last time I handled one, my reaction was "aw, bless". I suspect a D4 owner would think the same of my D800. I don't consider the 70-200 to be a big lens (let alone the 14-24) because I'm used to carrying a 200 f/2 or a 150-500 (or even a 500 f/4). I suspect some 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4 owners think of the 200 f/2 as equally dinky.<br />

<br />

It depends what you're used to and what you're prepared to put up with. If I were medically limited in what I could carry, on the other hand, I'd certainly cut back. But I'm so used to carrying extra stuff around (my typical work trip involves three laptops these days) that a bit of camera weight probably affects me less than most.<br />

<br />

I'm completely sympathetic about the lack of cheap small and wide primes, especially for DX (although if you don't mind being slower there's no shortage of zooms - frankly, if I shot DX, my semi-wide would start with the Sigma f/1.8 18-35).</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon and Canon DX - can't do it at all.<br>

this comment speaks volumes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I guess 11-16/2.8, 18-35/1.8, and 60/2.8 could qualify - but that's not exactly a light-weight and compact kit.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've realised that my definition of a "big camera" is biased by what I've been carrying around ... I don't consider the 70-200 to be a big lens (let alone the 14-24)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Skewed perception indeed...</p>

 

[cc_chang1]

<p>There were a couple Olympus EM1 vs SONY A7 comparisons in the m4/3 forum at Dpreview. I found this series quite informative since the author has some very nice real world pictures that are also pretty to look at. You may find them informative:<br /> http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52992579<br /> <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53007968">http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53007968</a><br /> http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53090322</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>if I shot DX, my semi-wide would start with the Sigma f/1.8 18-35.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>well, yeah, there are options, but not OEM ones. the 18-35/1.8 is an intriguing lens, but it's not exactly small.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't consider the 70-200 to be a big lens (let alone the 14-24)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>lol. well... different strokes for different folks. i love everything about the 70-200 except the weight.</p>

<p>CC, it's hard to draw any hard and fast conclusions about those pics since the series is heavily post-processed. you'd really need SOOC shots. that said, it does appear that you can get essentially the same shot with both cameras, and in a couple instances i liked the E-M1 shot better (an entirely subjective opinion based on personal preference). of course, the FF camera is going to be the better choice to print big on, but to me what was really eye-opening are the comments about operational speed and ease of use, which skew heavily toward the less-expensive E-M1. in some ways, this represents the evolutionary stages of both cameras: the a7 is a first-gen product, while the E-M1 is the pinnacle of m4/3 design which has had more time to refine itself.</p>

<p>that the E-M1 represents an evolutionary step forward is a good thing, especially when you compare it to Nikon's recent offerings, which seem like a holding pattern of slight incremental improvements, and some backward steps, in the iterations of mostly consumer bodies.</p>

<p>but i have to wonder how much better m4/3 can get before it falls into the same category of Nikon DSLRs, which arent making any more quantum leaps, it seems (and probably wont until the if/when happens and mirrorless cameras exceed the >10% share they currently have in the US market).</p>

<p>of course, the same thing could be said about Fuji's bodies, which are a generation or two behind m4/3 in terms of maturity. the XT1 does seem like a step forward from the Xpro/XE2. one of the good things about Fuji, though, is they keep issuing firmware updates even after the cameras have been out for awhile--which means they're not trying to force you automatically into an upgrade cycle like Nikon/Canon.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>You do have to wonder why threads like this take off in a big way - I suspect it's because none of us a really happy with what the camera manufacturers are offering us. Maybe its time for R&D depts to have a real good no holds barred look at what a very good contemporary camera could be.</p>

<p>The idea that manufacturers like Nikon produce high end cameras that meet the specific needs of the press photographer and then assume that the vast camera using public will need or want the same features probably needs to be questioned - particularly when there are fewer and fewer press photographers.</p>

<p>I would think that its about time we saw some real imagination creep in - rather than packing everything into cute retro bodies.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I would think that its about time we saw some real imagination creep in - rather than packing everything into cute retro bodies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i sure hope your idea of "real imagination" isnt a red plastic body color. </p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Good one Eric! no there's nothing vaguely imaginative (or creative) about camouflaging an existing camera with different colour or that an update may benefit from silly cosmetics, maybe it gives some people the illusion that it is more user friendly - personally I doubt it. I suspect it's driven by marketing people who feel they have evidence that a certain demographic will be more likely to buy wacko coloured cameras if provided with them.</p>

<p>No for me a genuine look at what people rely require, back to the drawing board if you like, is what's needed - of course I'm very mindful of the fact that manufactures who have done this have often fallen in a hole very quickly - my favourite film camera was a Rollei 2000!!! - a very good example of the point I make. But lurking in these mistakes could be the answer that could give us a better spread of features that suit each of us individually.</p>

<p>I mean we should take notice of the fact that back in WW2 and before they had pocket sized medium format film cameras.</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>This has been an interesting discusion, with actual facts as well as anecdotal evidence and opinion, which is great for the discipline. I have dedected a little FF snobbery, but on the whole this has been at a low level and I am sure if this discussion ahd been psoted on the MFT or Street forum there would have been similar comments about "taking pretty pictures of flowers". The over-riding sense I am getting is that most people are happy with whatever they've got. This is a good thing. While the IQ on almost all camera lines is progressing nicely (I don't think anyone would argue that the D800, A7, X100S, XT1 and GX7 can produce very good images in relation to their sensoe size), I do think it is vital that we all have a choice. It is a truism that there is no such thing as one camera which does it all....yet. I imagine something like a relatively compact interchangeable-lens mirrorless camera with an X-trans sensor halfway between an APS-C and a FF, with staggeringly fast AF, focus-peaking and a next-gen EVF, with a great line of fast primes and zooms would fulfill most photographers, but it is also certain that somebody would be unhappy with something about it. This is why we have so many camera companies.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>This is exactly the point Stephen - tomorrow I go to the 30th anniversary of the gallery that I show with and of course I'll take a few snaps, for posterity and record, do they need to be printed large etc - no. They'll go on social media - what do I take in the way of a camera? a Fuji X100, haven't felt the need to go the extra yards for the s. Fits in my pocket (quite large) and after the event I can go to dinner and the size weight of my camera won't be a problem.</p>

<p>The D800 stays at home - again. But you notice that the sales of Leica M are such that there's still a huge waiting list for them, social status item sure but...... they do take nice pics and you don't feel as if the cameras is trying to tell you what you should like or short cutting things for you.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>The over-riding sense I am getting is that most people are happy with whatever they've got.</blockquote>

 

<p>You take that back. My gear acquisition syndrome is alive and well. :-) (It would be less so if I could spend more time out shooting...)</p>

 

<blockquote>But you notice that the sales of Leica M are such that there's still a huge waiting list for them</blockquote>

 

<p>Actually, I think I read this week that Leica UK are no longer back-ordered on the M. But I appreciate that they're popular, and I wouldn't turn one down if offered.</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>Don't get me wrong Andrew. I am always looking for the next thing and would love to 'graduate' to an A7 or XT1. I think available budget plays just as important a part in which camera one buys as anything else and this is not necessarily about how much you earn but often about how much one is willing to spend on one's photography. But it is nice that only this week I setup some "studio shots" of smallish objects with my latest camera and was very pleased with my results, using it in a different way than normal and learning in the process. I now have a Street setup and a non-Street.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Agreed, Stephen. I always buy stuff because there's a particular (type of) shot that it will allow me to take better than my existing kit - I've never been tempted to upgrade just because something is shiny. In fact, I'm looking at HeliconFocus and similar options at the moment so that I can have more fun with macro photography (automatic focus stacking) and astrophotography (registax-style).</p>

[ruslan]

<p>Recently I have discovered Olympus PEN E-PM-1 <br />It is a capable camera for its price. <br />It costs only a fraction of X-pro 1 but is capable. Try to unite it with Nikkor 24/2.8 AI-s and you will get a reasonble and cheap combo. Another lens, 50/1.4 AI-s makes it a good portrait combo. It needs some skills to compose and quickly use LV to see a larger frgment of the shot - to focus dead-on and shoot a series. <br />And this small luxury is in a small package. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ruslan - good point about the adapting. I do have a micro-4/3 to F adaptor, that I don't use as much as I should. Combined with my smallest F-mount Nikkors, the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D and 135 f/2.8 AI-S, it's far from bad (though the former lens is really not wonderful wide open; my adaptor isn't G-friendly, sadly), it's small, and it saves me from needing to flesh out a second system just to have some portrait lenses for my GF2. In fact, I got the camera because my wife wanted something to carry around when I was carrying big lenses, so compatibility was part of it. Sadly I'm not flush with small Nikon wides, but since I've got the native lenses that isn't such an issue so long as 14mm is wide enough for me on 4/3. (Even in F mount, I can only beat that with a fish-eye.)<br />

<br />

The crop for the 1-series is a step too far, so I've not yet felt the need to get the adaptor for my V1; I may reconsider if I do more birding, since Thom Hogan apparently swears by the "1 series plus big prime" combination.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Recently I have discovered Olympus PEN E-PM-1 <br />It is a capable camera for its price.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>these bodies are going for what small sensor P&S cams were a few years back, and are comparable to the current fire sale prices on Nikon J1. at 50% off introductory retail price, it's a good deal if you dont go any farther into the system. once you start adding primes to get the best optical performance, the price adds up quick. </p>

[shutterbud]

<p>I think if you're serious about photography, a few primes are a necessity. It always puzzles me to hear of, primarily Nikonistas and Canonites, talking about their new super-expensive zooms. Of course, convenience and versatility can be important, but for those prepared to invest in such expensive equipment, who are ok with taking a long time in the digital studio to get things just right, I can't understand why they don't do the work beforehand and walk to the best place to take a shot from using the very best lenses their system has. Primes are integral to the mirrorless experience. I used my zoom for those studio shots and then on Thursday I couldn't get a shot quite right, too much small detail on the subject, so I pulled out a sharp prime. I <em>really </em>wish I'd used it for all those shots! Cannot be bothered doing a reshoot and TBH no-one would notice online, but it was a strong reminder to always use the best lens you've got for the job, convenience be damned!</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>I can't understand why they don't do the work beforehand and walk to the best place to take a shot from using the very best lenses their system has.</em></p>

<p>There may not be one shot, but a variety of shots that are needed from a session. If you vary the background and lighting and the models try out different clothes, if on top of all that you have to switch lenses a lot to get the variety of shots required, it can interfere with the flow of the session. Quite a lot of the time I just use the 24-70 so that there is less of the subject's time wasted. There isn't much in terms of image quality that is sacrificed (if any), and certainly that lens is capable of reproducing enough detail for any purpose that I might have in mind (especially in a studio environment with controlled lighting).</p>

<p>I do like primes and use them e.g. when I want the cleanest separation between subject and background (also, I use a 105mm for head shots as it is designed for that and is much smaller than the 70-200/2.8) but in the studio I control the background by physically changing the background, and don't normally use shallow depth of field, so the zoom saves the subject's time and patience. Similar thing if I'm doing a portrait shoot outdoors; if I want good subject / background separation, I will often use an f/1.4 prime, but if I need to produce a variety of shots with the subject's proportion relative to the background controlled, and if I need to carry lighting equipment a lot of the time it is more practical to work with a zoom (since I'm already adjusting the lighting I don't want to be changing lenses on top of that, if it is not absolutely necessary).</p>

<p>Today a lot of people don't even realize it is possible to have a "real" camera (not a phone) without a zoom. "How is it possible to take pictures without a zoom?" I get that question sometimes. I just roll my eyes in response.</p>

<p><em>Primes are integral to the mirrorless experience.</em></p>

<p>I like primes myself but good luck selling that idea to the majority of photographers. If your zooms are not giving you enough detail for any application in a studio environment, perhaps the sensor is too small.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I have a number of primes, but my sharpest wide lens is my 14-24, so the zoom isn't always the worst option. My 70-200 is much sharper than my 135 f/2 was, and I believe more than the 180mm f/2.8 is, though it's not unduly troubling my 150mm macro or my 200 f/2. It's probably sharper than my 85mm too, though I keep meaning to fix that with an f/1.8 AF-S. I do consider a fast zoom to be a compromise - I want some choice over framing and some choice over depth of field; a superzoom only really offers me one of these, and a prime only offers the other. If I'm moving and the subject is moving, I need both. Well, I don't, but I end up cropping a lot otherwise, and I don't have that much depth of field control.<br />

<br />

I'm not so tempted by a 24-70 (partly, it's not "perfect" enough for the price; partly f/2.8 doesn't appeal to me in that focal range - YMMV) but the pro zooms are designed to be the best compromise available for the money. That's not the same thing as treating a fast mid-zoom as an upgrade to the kit lens, which is the way I've seen some magazines try to treat them.<br />

<br />

"Walk to the best place?" Well, that would change the perspective. I need a range of focal lengths, because I want independent perspective and framing control. If everyone holds still, I can do that with primes, give or take - though the "expensive" 70-200 isn't all that pricey once I've looked at my 8mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 90mm, 150mm, 200mm and 500mm prime selection (even after I got rid of the 135) - and it's not exactly big compared with the last two, either. People - and animals - don't hold still.<br />

<br />

On the other hand, if we're talking about sticking an 18-200 on a 24MP DX camera, I'm entirely sympathetic about how useful that is. Though I've heard Sigma's new one is tiny.</p>

[zhang_wei2]

<p>I think there's one thing you should always keep in mind, no matter what producers or fans of X or Y say. A bigger sensor gives better overall image quality. I'm talking about <strong>RAW</strong> image quality, not the in-camera <strong>processed</strong> JPG files. I'm convinced the base RAW files should be good. You can always later process photos the way you like on your own computer.</p>

<p>You can compare the RAW output from cameras here at the <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=nikon_df&attr13_1=fujifilm_xt1&attr13_2=nikon_d7100&attr13_3=nikon_d610&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=200&attr16_1=200&attr16_2=200&attr16_3=200&normalization=full&widget=46&x=-0.22052096388647544&y=-0.6122634176323558">dpreview</a> website. Take a good look, pick the cameras you are interested in, try higher ISO settings and draw your own conclusions.</p>

<p>Another important question is; what level of quality do you actually need for your photography? How big do you want to be able print or publish? Do you often need the higher ISO settings of your camera? What is acceptable image quality for you or your clients?</p>

<p>How important is the smaller size and lower weight of the camera system for you? If it's your number one concern, then you should pick a smaller sensor (equals smaller camera and lenses). Micro Four Thirds is a good system. APSC not so much, because the lenses for that sensor are relatively big and heavy. If image quality is most important, a medium format camera of course is the best, but a smaller full frame sensor could be a good starting point for you.</p>