Micro 4/3 love

[Bama_Panda]

Lurker here for years. This is my first post.

I read with interest the article 'Traveling Light' and the authors experiences with the G1.

With the new emphasis on smaller DSLR bodies & lenses by Olympus & the advancement of m4/3 by them and Panasonic - I can't help but wonder if LL might take a new look at the 4/3 concept.

The new E620 from Olympus is marginally bigger than the G1, yet offers the choice of going really small and also to be able to use grips, bigger lenses, etc. - with better focusing and features that really only come on a DSLR.

Is Olympus finally finding it's niche in the digital imaging world? I would love to see more input here on what a lightweight, full featured DSLR can do for a experienced photographer. After all, the sensors in the 4/3 camp are improving, and have done so. 8x10s & 11x14s are big enough for most of us, and a perfect noise free image really comes at a high cost.

It would be of great interest to many, I would think - how this new breed of 4/3 is viewed, especially when all of us do not have the mean to buy FF, nor do we want to carry the weight required.

[DarkPenguin]

I like my G1 a lot but its high ISO abilities are no where near that of any of my canon products.  (Other than the G9.)

[Bama_Panda]

I like my G1 a lot but its high ISO abilities are no where near that of any of my canon products.  (Other than the G9.)

That is true, I am sure.
You did not mention if your other Canon stuff was full frame, but what I see is that 4/3 and APSC both have their strengths and weaknesses.
Excepting FF, better high ISO performance in APSC & 4/3 at this stage of the game, seems to be a trade off in regards to other areas of sensor performance.

[BJL]

I like my G1 a lot but its high ISO abilities are no where near that of any of my canon products.  (Other than the G9.)

Unremarkable: smaller size (including lenses in the size comparison), higher resolution, and lower noise in low light/high shutter speed shooting are inherently in opposition. Comparing alternatives with roughly equally technologies (sensor and amplifier noise, etc.), any significant improvement in one will inevitably come at the cost of at least one of the other two. The G1 vs EF-S or 35mmFF comparison is almost inevitably a case of achieving reduced size in exchange for less resolution and/or lesser low light ability than a larger kit could offer. To paraphrase Michael R., Micro 4/3 is the best horse for some courses, not others.

[Bama_Panda]

Unremarkable: smaller size (including lenses in the size comparison), higher resolution, and lower noise in low light/high shutter speed shooting are inherently in opposition. Comparing alternatives with roughly equally technologies (sensor and amplifier noise, etc.), any significant improvement in one will inevitably come at the cost of at least one of the other two. The G1 vs EF-S or 35mmFF comparison is almost inevitably a case of achieving reduced size in exchange for less resolution and/or lesser low light ability than a larger kit could offer.

To paraphrase Michael R., Micro 4/3 is the best horse for some courses, not others.

That last line was easy to understand. The rest, not as easy.
Interesting how APSC (or Canon's version, anyway) is mentioned in the same vein as 35 mm FF when compared to mFT, which is the same sensor as 4/3, of course.
Yes, APSC is larger than 4/3 but we all know it is not by that much.
True, Canon and Nikon have done a better job working out high ISO scenarios than Oly. Maybe the latest incarnations of 4/3 is closing the gap some.

[alert_bri]

Hi Bama,

me too... I posted a thread over on dpreview referring to Michael's last couple of articles... maybe the original promise of 4/3rds is finally becoming a reality, and more apparent as people become more keen on finding Value for Money.

As with Michael's tongue in cheek comparison of the G10 to MF digital, I think that Michael is doing a great job of gently coaxing digital photographers to think about what they really need, and whether the FF dinosaurs are giving it to them?

There's a change coming... maybe Canikon will realise it and come out with competition for the new Olympus E-620 - but take a look, Olympus have the *only* new DSLR on release at PMA.

Kind Regards

Brian

[BJL]

The sensor area difference from 4/3 (13x17.3mm) to DX (15.8 x 23.6mm) is a factor of 1.66, which at equal pixel count and equal aperture ratio means that photosites can gather light faster by about that factor, suggesting roughly a 1.66x increase in usable ISO speed, or about 2/3 stop. For 4/3 vs EF-S, the gap is about 1/2 stop. Lab tests with recent sensors give roughly comparable figures: half to one stop.

I will let others decide whether that difference is a little or a lot for their needs! Given that my 4/3 lenses are f/2.8-3.5, so at least 2/3 stop brighter than any comparable Canon, Nikon or Sony lens at vaguely similar price, I do not see myself suffering a significant speed disadvantage relative to alternatives of similar price and size (which I believe permanently excludes 35mm format!)

[JamesA]

The sensor area difference from 4/3 (13x17.3mm) to DX (15.8 x 23.6mm) is a factor of 1.66, which at equal pixel count and equal aperture ratio means that photosites can gather light faster by about that factor, suggesting roughly a 1.66x increase in usable ISO speed, or about 2/3 stop. For 4/3 vs EF-S, the gap is about 1/2 stop. Lab tests with recent sensors give roughly comparable figures: half to one stop.

I will let others decide whether that difference is a little or a lot for their needs! Given that my 4/3 lenses are f/2.8-3.5, so at least 2/3 stop brighter than any comparable Canon, Nikon or Sony lens at vaguely similar price, I do not see myself suffering a significant speed disadvantage relative to alternatives of similar price and size (which I believe permanently excludes 35mm format!)

Here's the D300 compared to an Olympus E-410 at 800 and 1600 ISO.  Processed in PS, all noise reduction in both cameras and PS turned off. Exposure times and apertures were identical.  

Nikon 800 ISO
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109873044
Olympus 800 ISO
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109873080
Nikon 1600 ISO
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109873108
Olympus 1600 ISO
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109873130

[BJL]

Here's the D300 compared to an Olympus E-410 at 800 and 1600 ISO.

Thanks. To me the E-410 at ISO 800 looks distinctly less noisy than the D300 at ISO 1600, noisier than the D30 at ISO 800, fitting my suggestion of the larger sensor having an ISO speed advantage, but of noticeably less than one stop.

However, the E-410 is older and cheaper (4/3 model from later the same year had better high ISO performance) while the D300 is 12MP vs 10MP, so the comparison is not ideal. It would be interesting to see E-620 vs D90, for fairly new 12MP MOS sensor designs all around.

[Bama_Panda]

The sensor area difference from 4/3 (13x17.3mm) to DX (15.8 x 23.6mm) is a factor of 1.66, which at equal pixel count and equal aperture ratio means that photosites can gather light faster by about that factor, suggesting roughly a 1.66x increase in usable ISO speed, or about 2/3 stop. For 4/3 vs EF-S, the gap is about 1/2 stop. Lab tests with recent sensors give roughly comparable figures: half to one stop.

I will let others decide whether that difference is a little or a lot for their needs! Given that my 4/3 lenses are f/2.8-3.5, so at least 2/3 stop brighter than any comparable Canon, Nikon or Sony lens at vaguely similar price, I do not see myself suffering a significant speed disadvantage relative to alternatives of similar price and size (which I believe permanently excludes 35mm format!)

Agree.

Your reply about comparing the latest 4/3 sensors to say, the D90 - is also spot on, IMO.

I do think that there is way more than some pundits and pixel peepers might allow in comparison of 4/3 with pretty much any APSC, even the latest 4/3 incarnations. I really like what Oly has done in making DSLRs that that overall deliver better than average JPEGs, and I think that the Oly colors, especially the blues - are to die for. For most average photogs, Oly has a lot more to offer than they might realize. They just do not the name or ad money to bring the message to the attention of many buyers.

The E620 may change that to a large degree. Looks to be a lot of camera for the dollars.

[JamesA]

Thanks. To me the E-410 at ISO 800 looks distinctly less noisy than the D300 at ISO 1600, noisier than the D30 at ISO 800, fitting my suggestion of the larger sensor having an ISO speed advantage, but of noticeably less than one stop.

However, the E-410 is older and cheaper (4/3 model from later the same year had better high ISO performance) while the D300 is 12MP vs 10MP, so the comparison is not ideal. It would be interesting to see E-620 vs D90, for fairly new 12MP MOS sensor designs all around.

The D90 has noticeably less noise than the D300, I've compared them and the newer E-series Olympus appear to have less slightly less noise, but the images are softer than the old cameras making me think maybe the AA filter is stronger in the new ones.

[Bama_Panda]

The D90 has noticeably less noise than the D300, I've compared them and the newer E-series Olympus appear to have less slightly less noise, but the images are softer than the old cameras making me think maybe the AA filter is stronger in the new ones.

There is so much talk about noise, but from what I see from mfgs. of both APSC & 4/3 sensors is there is a decision made by each mfg. to determine what is the most important part of the whole in regard to sensor performance.

Some want a cleaner high ISO image, but it seems there is less effort or emphasis placed on the viability of a JPEG that does not need PP. Others, like OLY - shoot for a great JPEG that any novice would be happy with, but the higher ISO images may need a bit of tweaking in something like Neat Image.

Bottom line, for either APSC or 4/3 and the photographer that is looking for that perfect image, there usually has to be some tweaking on one end or the other. Much of this, I bet - have to do with $$ spent to develop the camera.

I see images all the time from 'OLD' cameras like my E300 that are fantastic, at a variety of ISOs and F stops. Can I do the same with mine? I could, but it would take me learning my camera better, taking more time studying PP - maybe investing in new lenses or software. Have I yet done any of this? Some, but not near enough - sad to say. But I could if I found the time, passion, or energy - and I would see better results.

Many want a camera that does it all with perfection, but that camera does not exist. Just my 'O'.

[DarkPenguin]

I do think that there is way more than some pundits and pixel peepers might allow in comparison of 4/3 with pretty much any APSC, even the latest 4/3 incarnations. I really like what Oly has done in making DSLRs that that overall deliver better than average JPEGs, and I think that the Oly colors, especially the blues - are to die for.

I always laugh when I read that.  I haven't shot a Jpeg in years and my colors are my colors and not Canon's, Panny's or Fuji's.

[Bama_Panda]

I always laugh when I read that.  I haven't shot a Jpeg in years and my colors are my colors and not Canon's, Panny's or Fuji's.

True. But you are the exception - not the rule, when we look at ALL the DSLRs that have been and are being sold to average photographers..

[DarkPenguin]

True. But you are the exception - not the rule.

Not on this site.

[Bama_Panda]

Not on this site.

I am sure that is true. In that light, my initial post may be somewhat superfluous. What prompted it was the article on mFT.

Maybe the idea of small, capable cameras and lenses will never really take off here at LL. But if it does, there might be a influx of folk who like to admire those photos that come from a large FF system - while at the same time never really take the time to learn a lot of PP personally. They just want to shoot really great JPEGs.

Change seems to be always coming, and often not in the direction we assumed it might be.

[dalethorn]

I am sure that is true. In that light, my initial post may be somewhat superfluous. What prompted it was the article on mFT.
Maybe the idea of small, capable cameras and lenses will never really take off here at LL. But if it does, there might be a influx of folk who like to admire those photos that come from a large FF system - while at the same time never really take the time to learn a lot of PP personally. They just want to shoot really great JPEGs.
Change seems to be always coming, and often not in the direction we assumed it might be.

When you see top-quality (resolution included) images from LF/MF right next to images from smaller cameras, especially those with 12mp or less sensors, that side-by-side comparison helps you see what you get with the bigger gear. Then you have to pay for it, lug it around, etc. You wanna go into that restaurant after a shoot, and you leave $25,000 worth of gear in the car trunk? Better have car trunk insurance. I've sold a lot of laptop computers to people that way, but nowdays people mostly take them into the restaurant with them. Harder to do with some of the large photo gear.

[JamesA]

When you see top-quality (resolution included) images from LF/MF right next to images from smaller cameras, especially those with 12mp or less sensors, that side-by-side comparison helps you see what you get with the bigger gear. Then you have to pay for it, lug it around, etc. You wanna go into that restaurant after a shoot, and you leave $25,000 worth of gear in the car trunk? Better have car trunk insurance. I've sold a lot of laptop computers to people that way, but nowdays people mostly take them into the restaurant with them. Harder to do with some of the large photo gear.

Maybe not forever though.  The Leica S2 is smaller than the 1DsMkIII.

[dalethorn]

Maybe not forever though.  The Leica S2 is smaller than the 1DsMkIII.

Speaking of Leica, they are in a very strange position from what I see. A long history of very limited appeal cameras due to high price. And it looks like the S2 is having a long development/market cycle. As quickly as things are changing now, that would make me very nervous about investing in the S2, never mind getting the best lenses. I'd still bet that typical S2 users will be hauling a big, hefty bag around with them.