4/3rds?

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

Right now my digital ride is a G9. I've decided to go ahead and start looking at a DSLR and there is no way I can justify big bucks. In addition I don't like big cameras. I have felt the G1 and love the feel and size likewise I really liked the Olympus 420 while the 520 was starting to feel just a bit big. I know there is a new 620 out but I've not seen one yet to handle. These are all 4/3rds system cameras. I've no doubt the Leica 4/3rds - don't remember the model - would be great but too much money I suspect. What I'm wondering is do you experts think the 4/3rds route a good road to go down? If not what similar size in your hands cameras are there that are not 4/3rds?

Just for background my film camera is a Minolta XD5 and I have a few lenses for it. If fits my hands absolutely perfectly and has the features I needed - shutter, aperture and manual priorities and rugged. I'm looking for similar qualities in digital. Basically - I think - same priorities, AEB, a nice set of menu options and as good a sensor as I can get with some decent lens availability.

What do you guys think?

-Ed-

[Farkled]

The 4/3 sensor is significantly smaller than an APS-C sensor which is significantly smaller than a full frame sensor.

4/3s system suffer in terms of higher ISO noise capability.  If you can live with 800 or less then fine.  If the Canon Rebel series and equivalent Nikons are too large for you, then you have found your answer.  Check out Michael's latest vacation images - all made with a 4/3s system

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

Where would I find these Michael vacation pictures?

I am concerned about the sensor size and I'll have to go check out a Rebel and equivalent Nikon for how they feel in my hands. I did look a year or so ago at Rebels and thought they were big but... That said will the 4/3rds line improve or will it die? With Leica and Olympus behind it I would expect it to grow but the sensor has to do the job. Via talk - I hear the sensor is fundamentally different in how it relates to the lens and so acts "bigger" - I don't know though. The other issue that comes up is that when you buy a camera you basically buy into a "system" (lenses etc). Clearly Canon and Nikon have great "systems" - Is Olympus good? Will Panasonic be good? Are there any other 4/3rds cameras coming from other makers? So much to consider. I'd spend up to $750 or a bit more - body alone.

-Ed-

The 4/3 sensor is significantly smaller than an APS-C sensor which is significantly smaller than a full frame sensor.

4/3s system suffer in terms of higher ISO noise capability.  If you can live with 800 or less then fine.  If the Canon Rebel series and equivalent Nikons are too large for you, then you have found your answer.  Check out Michael's latest vacation images - all made with a 4/3s system

[dalethorn]

I want to buy a G1 because of the excellent performance without the mirror box.  But I won't buy until I can get the camera body without the kit lens, and with a micro 4/3 zoom lens made by Panasonic for the G1 that goes out to 600 mm (35 mm equiv.)  I don't see a need for shooting landscapes (wide angle) with the G1 until the sensor pixel count reaches at least the same density as the Panasonic LX3.

[picnic]

Hey All,

Where would I find these Michael vacation pictures?

I am concerned about the sensor size and I'll have to go check out a Rebel and equivalent Nikon for how they feel in my hands. I did look a year or so ago at Rebels and thought they were big but... That said will the 4/3rds line improve or will it die? With Leica and Olympus behind it I would expect it to grow but the sensor has to do the job. Via talk - I hear the sensor is fundamentally different in how it relates to the lens and so acts "bigger" - I don't know though. The other issue that comes up is that when you buy a camera you basically buy into a "system" (lenses etc). Clearly Canon and Nikon have great "systems" - Is Olympus good? Will Panasonic be good? Are there any other 4/3rds cameras coming from other makers? So much to consider. I'd spend up to $750 or a bit more - body alone.

-Ed-

I don't think Michael has posted his vacation pics (except for perhaps 1)--he planned to do a little review of using the G1 for a travel camera.

[DarkPenguin]

4/3rds isn't that much smaller than APS-C.  (It is almost as tall as the format is more square.)

If you don't need shallow DOF or high ISO the format is fine.  If you do the APS-C formats are a stop or two better in noise and 35mm FF is a couple of stops better in DOF.

[picnic]

4/3rds isn't that much smaller than APS-C.  (It is almost as tall as the format is more square.)

If you don't need shallow DOF or high ISO the format is fine.  If you do the APS-C formats are a stop or two better in noise and 35mm FF is a couple of stops better in DOF.

That's true--I have 1.6x (400D) and 2x with the G1 (and FF).  BTW--if you want faster lens, consider 3rd party.  I'm really enjoying my FD lenses with adaptor--MF is a cinch.

Diane

[250swb]

Is Olympus good?

Olympus make some of the very best lenses available for dslr cameras. The top ones are truly Leica quality. Even the kit lenses are better than many medium grade lenses from other manufacturers. So to a great extent the whole system comes together based around small size (of lenses in particular, but bodies as well), very well built, and superb optics. It could be said the sensor size lets it down, but then again it could be said the whole package lets you get out with a camera easier, trek further, and 'be there' to get the photo.

No system is perfect, but I think Olympus are doing a fine job that is largely mis-understood by many photographers who only look at the sensor size in megapixels, and not the compensating qualities from other aspects of the system.

Steve

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

Thank All of you for the replies! Much to think about.

I've actually little doubt Olympus gear is good - it's been around since before I bought my old Minolta - good to know they have kept up the quality. Back then you bought Olympus, Canon, Minolta, Pentax maybe Ricoh and if you were rich Nikon and other high end cameras. It was much simpler then than it is now.

That said I've a couple more issues I'd like some more suggestions on.

Stabilization - Lens vs Body. Olympus is in body Panasonic G1 is in Lens. If you buy Panny and use another brand of lens which assumes you have in Body stabilization - how strooed are you - if at all? (As a note using manual focus is generally fine by me) Dianes post spurred this question.

Megapixel size verus final print size. Is 12 a lot better than 10? I know lots of other items are involved but as a general rule...

The issue around noise heck that just goes back to film speed - fast tends to be grainy. I'm not convinced higher than 800 is going to be used that much. DOF is more of a concern. If you like landscape/nature and photographing say flowers with a soft background - will a 4/3rds do it?

Again TIA! -Ed-

Olympus make some of the very best lenses available for dslr cameras. The top ones are truly Leica quality. Even the kit lenses are better than many medium grade lenses from other manufacturers. So to a great extent the whole system comes together based around small size (of lenses in particular, but bodies as well), very well built, and superb optics. It could be said the sensor size lets it down, but then again it could be said the whole package lets you get out with a camera easier, trek further, and 'be there' to get the photo.

No system is perfect, but I think Olympus are doing a fine job that is largely mis-understood by many photographers who only look at the sensor size in megapixels, and not the compensating qualities from other aspects of the system.

Steve

[Er1kksen]

As for the dof question, yes it will, and mine does on a regular basis. The kit lenses won't do it very well (neither will anyone else's) but the slightly higher-level zooms certainly can. The 14-54 f2.8-3.5 lens has beautiful bokeh and is weathersealed, very high standards of construction. I've seen them go for as low as $250. My favorite lens for a long time was my Sigma 30mm f1.4, which gave me even shallower dof when I wanted it. As for flowers, you can get shallow dof in pretty much any macro shot with a DSLR, regardless of sensor size.

If you buy the G1 and use another brand's non-stabilized lens, well then, you don't have stabilization. It's still easier to handhold than your SLRs (no mirror slap). With the stabilized Olys you have stabilization for any lens.

As far as the future of the brand, "The death of 4/3" predictions used to be pretty popular online, but they seem to have largely died down a bit as Oly has demonstrated that they are indeed still alive, kicking, and innovative. People seem to forget that you can survive just fine at even 1% market share; it's whether or not you make a profit at that level. Oly's sales have been doing well, relatively speaking, and it looks to me like 4/3 has a bright future in store.

[John Camp]

I have the Panasonic Lumix G1, the first m4/3, which I bought as a supplement to my Nikon D3/D300 system. I have also ordered from Stephen Gandy (and just got word it's on the way!) an adapter for Leica lenses, of which I have several. The G1 itself is very nice -- light and relatively compact, with little perceptible shutter lag and a bright electronic viewfinder. In other words, it's very well done for what it is.

The problem I have is the sensor, especially after using my D3. As far as I'm concerned ISO 800 is pretty much the usable limit, and that only when you *gotta* get a shot. Even at 400 you get a little noise, though you can clean it up. This will be very familiar to film people, who worked with 100 or 400 ISO, and sometimes pushed to 800, knowing that the push would bring issues...

When I get the Leica adapter, I'll be mounting f1.2 lenses, and even an f/1, which will give me effectively another couple stops over the lenses that come with the G1; I don't know how that will affect the depth of field issues, since the thing has perhaps too much DOF with the kit lenses. There are also less expensive excellent prime lenses that will work with the Leica adapter (I'm thinking of the Voigtlanders.) With fast compact lenses with focus confirmation, I think the G1 will be an excellent travel camera, which is why I bought it. The IQ does not compare to the D3, especially in higher ISO ranges, but the D3 is huge and heavy, and the G1 is not. For 13x19 prints or so, shot in daylight, it's just fine. (I went to a flea market in Pasadena today, carrying the G1 with the 14-45 mounted, on a shoulder strap, never noticing the weight on my shoulder at all; and I carried and a 45-200 in a jacket pocket, and never really noticed that, either. They were so unnoticeable that I wound up not taking any pictures...)

However, Olympus is about to come out with their version of the m4/3, which will have internal image stabilization. If the dedicated lenses are as good as most Olympus lenses, and if the Leica adapter will work on the Olympus cameras (and I don't see why it shouldn't) then this may be the real answer -- an internally stabilized camera with excellent dedicated autofocus lenses and the ability to use Leica/Voigtlander primes. And perhaps a better sensor than the one in Panasonic. That is my hope; my fear is that Olympus will cripple the camera in some way to block the use of non-Olympus, non-m4/3 lenses.

Some people have suggested that Nikon/Canon may jump into this market with a small camera body, but there'll still be a difference, unless they come out with whole new lens lines -- the G1 with the 14-45 (28-90 equiv) kit zoom weights less than the 24-70 zoom lens (alone) that I use on my D3.

JC

[Per Ofverbeck]

....However, Olympus is about to come out with their version of the m4/3, which will have internal image stabilization. If the dedicated lenses are as good as most Olympus lenses, and if the Leica adapter will work on the Olympus cameras (and I don't see why it shouldn't) then this may be the real answer -- an internally stabilized camera with excellent dedicated autofocus lenses and the ability to use Leica/Voigtlander primes. And perhaps a better sensor than the one in Panasonic. That is my hope; my fear is that Olympus will cripple the camera in some way to block the use of non-Olympus, non-m4/3 lenses.
...

If they do, it would be like commercial suicide...

They must have noticed the interest in G1 that the 3rd party lens discussions (with the excellent images shown) has generated.  They surely wouldn´t want to kill that.  And they have obliged by producing OM adapters for their regular 4/3 cameras.

Also, for their own lens setup, both 4/3 standards have a major ace up their arm: that x2 crop factor!  While legacy lenses will give us a plethora of good portrait lenses, fast and short lenses for general use on 4/3 just don´t exist, unless one pays a fortune *and* accepts monster lenses bigger than the camera body (yes, there are C mount lenses, but they vignette).

I love my G1, and I´m impressed with both the kit zooms, as well as my Leica lenses.  But I´ll follow Olympus coming releases with lots of interest!

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

I wanted to follow up. But first I want to thank all of you for the replies.

Today I was at a camera shop that had the full gamut of cameras. At one point I had in front of me the following:

Canon Rebel xs and Rebel xsi
Nikon D 40, D60, D80 and D90
Olympus 420 and 520
Panasonic G1

That's 9 cameras - wish I could have taken them all home.  

So I'm gonna bottom line this now.

Basically the Rebels, and D40 through 80 (90 is big) and the Olympus 520 were all the same size and felt equally "big" in my hands. Yes they have different protrusions and such but basically all these cameras were bigger than I like although if there were no others on earth I could probably get used to any of them. It would become an issue of features.

The 420 and the G1 remain the "winners".

That said the Olympus 620 is supposedly smaller than the 520 - maybe? bigger than the 420 - I don't know yet. To me it looks clearly like either the 620 with it's features or the G1 is where I'm putting my money. Right now I'm going to see: 1) when I can get my hands on a 620 and 2) will the G1 (I already know I like it) prices fall assuming the G1 with HD comes out later this spring.

I am going to go to a digital slr - the question is which one. Of course now Samsung has announced a contender but it won't be out till the fall supposedly and isn't 4/3rds and will have proprirtory lenses. Not good news I suspect so I think it's 620 or G1.

Any opinions out there? Panny or Oly? Any preferences? Why?

-Ed-

[BJL]

Basically the Rebels, and D40 through 80 ... and the Olympus 520 were all the same size and felt equally "big" in my hands.

The 420 and the G1 remain the "winners".

The size and weight that matter to me are for a complete working camera, meaning one with a lens. More specifically, the bulk that matters most to me is of a camera with the largest, longest lens I will commonly use on it, for me a telephoto zoom.

So I suggest comparing the cameras with the lenses you plan to use attached, including perhaps something like 55-200's on the Canons and Nikons, 40-150 on the Olympuses, 45-200 on the G1 (though this has more reach than any of those other options.)

[DarkPenguin]

The size and weight that matter to me are for a complete working camera, meaning one with a lens. More specifically, the bulk that matters most to me is of a camera with the largest, longest lens I will commonly use on it, for me a telephoto zoom.

So I suggest comparing the cameras with the lenses you plan to use attached, including perhaps something like 55-200's on the Canons and Nikons, 40-150 on the Olympuses, 45-200 on the G1 (though this has more reach than any of those other options.)

The 45-200 drops off after about 150 so the comparison is still good.

[ricciardi]

I'd like to add something here. I got myself a Olympus E-3 with the 12-60, 50-200 and 50 macro.

The body is great. Focus system is fast and accurate, the viewfinder is good, camera is fast and responsive, plenty of resources, good interface.

The lenses are a gem. I made a few tests comparing to my 24-70 and 70-200 on a 1D2 and the results from Oly were superior wide open, specially with the 50-200.

So, I have no regrets. Noise IS an issue over ISO 1000, but I very rarely go that far.

[DarkPenguin]

That 50-500 swd is a reason to buy an oly.