Camera of the year

[barryfitzgerald]

The AF abilities of the legacy 4/3 lenses are not likely to be important to new buyers, only to previous 4/3 users wanting to re-use those lenses.
It's nice to have no question, but hardly a selling point for most buyers.

As for the original 4/3 that lasted from 2003-2010 with the E5 being the last body they made, effectively the 4/3 system died which was predicted some time ago by more than a few folks  That being the second system demise for Olympus after they dropped the OM mount, let's hope micro 4/3 lasts a bit longer.
Whilst it might not matter to some I've a few problems with Olympus and micro 4/3

Other than size, I see no advantage over other formats. Some might say that's enough for their needs which is great.
The other is cost, any company trying to sell a small sensor at the same price as a full frame one is either smoking something pretty strong..or just plain ripping consumers off, either way I think Olympus is going to have their hand forced by a declining market, cheaper FF bodies and far more discerning buyers.

I would also have to mention..that the 2011 accounting scandal, the subsequent firing of the "honest CEO" and later the lenient sentences handed out in one of the biggest fraud scandals in the history of Japan, leave a very very bad taste in my mouth personally. To the degree I would personally not want to hand over money to such a company, no matter how interesting their product might be.

That might be a side issue, but still the reality of things to come is that sensor size and relative cost will effectively limit future micro 4/3 bodies in terms of profitability and appeal. You could argue APS-C does to a point, but that format has legacy 35mm lens support, better DOF control v micro 4/3 and you can easily match and beat any micro 4/3 body for IQ with an APS-C camera costing a fraction of the EM-1's price.

Micro 4/3 is very much a niche market longer term, and that's the real problem for them. FF is heating up and however you cut it..it's a lot easier to sell a FF body for £1200 than a micro 4/3 one.

[Telecaster]

My approach with photo gear, as with other interests & pursuits affected by technological turbulence, is to put my metaphorical eggs in multiple baskets. This is a good way to avoid all the excesses of fanboydom.

I've said before that I didn't plan on buying any gear this year. But I've changed my mind. If, for me, 2013 was the Year of micro Four-Thirds then 2014 is looking to be the Year of the Folding Medium Format Rangefinder. My Zeiss Contessa could use a CLA but is otherwise in good shape. My dad's old Retina IIc works flawlessly. But remembering that Dad's first good camera (long gone) was a folding Voigtländer Bessa I've had my eye on the current Cosina/Fuji Bessa III. And using m43 along with my boxy Pentax has reinforced what I already knew to be true: I just do not like the 3:2 aspect ratio. Glad to be rid of it in fact. So I think I'll leave the Contessa & Retina alone and re-embrace the world of 6x6 and 6x7! (The III does both.) Let the photo biz do whatever it'll do, then evaluate things again next year.

http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtl_bessa_iii.htm

-Dave-

[trichardlin]

...
I would also have to mention..that the 2011 accounting scandal, the subsequent firing of the "honest CEO" and later the lenient sentences handed out in one of the biggest fraud scandals in the history of Japan, leave a very very bad taste in my mouth personally. To the degree I would personally not want to hand over money to such a company, no matter how interesting their product might be
...

That's an interesting approach.  If I understand you correctly, you choose to punish the engineers (and others on the camera team) who came up with a great product for what the CEO did. 

[peterottaway]

Actually the CEO  was the whistle blower in this case and was sacked - I image though Olympus were faced with paying over even more shareholders money in settlement.

It was various boards, multiple executives and auditors who basically wrecked the company. The legal sentences were as much a joke as the pardoning in Korea of the Chairman of Samsung.

[Paulo Bizarro]

From my experience, again from Portugal, Olympus is very expensive. Right now, the price of the EM1 is comparable to the price of a EOS 6D (with the Canon rebates tha ended in Dec 31). Lenses have comparable prices too, at least the usual ones. No doubt a EM1 with say, a 17 f1.8 is a fantastic kit for travel and street; but so is the 6D with a 40mm pancake, or 35 f2, or 50 1.4; for similar prices.

I am not taking sides here, just stating that price wise, for the normal shooter, the Canon makes a very strong point. So much so that on Dec 31 I bought a 6D with 50 1.4 lens.

[Martin86]

How many great images of our times have been shot with apertures below, say, f/2.0? And if they did, how many of us would be able to tell the difference if they were shot at a half or even a full stop smaller? And among those who could, how many would swear that it made all the difference in the world regarding the content?

Hi, I´m sorry but unfortunately you do not seem to get the point. The f2.0 lens on m4/3 chip behaves like f4.0 lens on FF camera in terms of depth of field. And that is pretty significant difference when compare to f1.4 lens mounted on the full frame camera.

[Ernst Dinkla]

If, for me, 2013 was the Year of micro Four-Thirds then 2014 is looking to be the Year of the Folding Medium Format Rangefinder. My Zeiss Contessa could use a CLA but is otherwise in good shape. My dad's old Retina IIc works flawlessly. But remembering that Dad's first good camera (long gone) was a folding Voigtländer Bessa I've had my eye on the current Cosina/Fuji Bessa III. And using m43 along with my boxy Pentax has reinforced what I already knew to be true: I just do not like the 3:2 aspect ratio. Glad to be rid of it in fact. So I think I'll leave the Contessa & Retina alone and re-embrace the world of 6x6 and 6x7! (The III does both.) Let the photo biz do whatever it'll do, then evaluate things again next year.

http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtl_bessa_iii.htm

-Dave-

For me 2004 was the Year of the Folding Medium Format, so 10 years ago. Digital cameras not grown up then and 35mm too small for nice scans. So I got a Bessa I with a 56x88 mm frame format, a Kodak Monitor 620 56x82 mm, an Iskra with 56x56 mm frame format and I converted a Polaroid 110b. The right scanners for the job too. By the time (2008/2009) Fuji thought there was still a market for a medium format folder it was not interesting anymore and I bought the 5D MK II. One of the showstoppers was that Fuji did not deliver a 56x82 mm frame size camera but a 56x68 mm maximum frame size and with that size in view an unnecessary 56x56 masking method. The camera is way too big compared to the MF folders of the 1960's. The 5D + lenses is heavy too so I am interested in M4/3 and do not expect its dead yet. That Europeans are not interested in smaller, capable digital camera systems must be a myth.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.

[Ernst Dinkla]

On fast lenses and DOF. There are very good vintage and new f/0.95 and faster lenses for M4/3, see the C-mount and movie lens catalogs. The Speed Booster adapters fill in some other temporary niches and make the step to M4/3 easier.

The EVF resolution improves and for critical focusing the sensor size no longer dictates the viewfinder size like it does in (reflex) optical viewfinders. No deviations between viewfinders and sensors on focusing, coverage etc. It could become the champion of viewfinders for fast lenses. Yes, there are disadvantages in EVFs but more in sports photography etc.

There was a time that medium format and larger were the choice for focus/bokeh tasks and 35 mm found its place too then. Faster lenses appeared, more accurate rangefinders to accompany them.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Hi, I´m sorry but unfortunately you do not seem to get the point. The f2.0 lens on m4/3 chip behaves like f4.0 lens on FF camera in terms of depth of field. And that is pretty significant difference when compare to f1.4 lens mounted on the full frame camera.

Ha! That's real funny! I "do not seem to get the point", but you failed to answer a single question from my post!?

Besides, in my post, I did not once mention m4/3 lenses or how they compare to full frame, but simply referred to your professed love for "fast full frame lenses." But if you insist on the spec differences on paper, it shall be noted that the fastest m4/3 lenses are not 2.0, but 0.95, which translates to, in DOF terms, to about 1.9 full-frame. Or, if you want to be even more precise,  f/1.5, as per Vladimirovich' post (#38).

[Riaan van Wyk]

My camera of the year is my own. All the rest are irrelevant.

Likewise, mine has survived two years of constant exposure to beach conditions, three bad waves that went over the camera and tripod, three years of shooting rivers and inbetween use in the hot and dusty conditions where I live.

[trichardlin]

Ha! That's real funny! I "do not seem to get the point", but you failed to answer a single question from my post!?

Besides, in my post, I did not once mention m4/3 lenses or how they compare to full frame, but simply referred to your professed love for "fast full frame lenses." But if you insist on the spec differences on paper, it shall be noted that the fastest m4/3 lenses are not 2.0, but 0.95, which translates to, in DOF terms, to about 1.9 full-frame. Or, if you want to be even more precise,  f/1.5, as per Vladimirovich' post (#38).

I don't think anyone would argue that sometimes one needs lots of depth of field, sometime, less.  It's really up to the photographer's intent and the limiting environmental factors (light, sensor sensitivity, etc). 

As most on this forum know, using shallow depth of field is just one subject isolation technique that many photographers use.  They are often sports, wild life or portrait photographers.  In many other situations, a photo can benefit from more depth of field.  I tend to side with Slobodan though.  My impression is that most iconic photos do not employ shallow depth of field as a main technique.

All of this will become a quaint argument if new technology like Lytro takes off.  You will then simply select the desired depth of field in post processing.

[John Camp]

Hi, I´m sorry but unfortunately you do not seem to get the point. The f2.0 lens on m4/3 chip behaves like f4.0 lens on FF camera in terms of depth of field. And that is pretty significant difference when compare to f1.4 lens mounted on the full frame camera.

And you get more depth of field if you step up to medium format. FF is not a magic solution, it's just one position in a range of qualities; I recently took some book-cover photographs with an m4/3 and a D800e. I used a Voightlander m4/3 42.5 f0.95 and a Nikkor 85mm 1.8G and frankly, the depth of field isolation was just fine and there wasn't a nickel's worth of difference between the images.

BarryFitzgerald says that m4/3 has no special advantage except size, and I'd agree. But size is the whole point, and it's a huge, under-appreciated advantage over FF. I can  take a full system, with two bodies, in a relatively small carry-on when traveling. With a FF system, I'd need a rolling case. The price of higher-end m4/3 is somewhat irrelevant, because you're paying for a top-end camera, and have other choices in the same format. And it's still lower than top-end FF. The m4/3 quality is good enough for high-end magazine covers and all internet uses, which, for 99% of people using cameras, is good enough. MY feeling is that, given time, the whole camera business may simply push niches -- cell phones may eventually destroy the compact camera market, m4/3 will take over the former DSLR market, FF will become the new medium format, and medium format, with its incredibly high prices, will become a true niche, competing with traditional large format (which will continue.) Most people don't consider than m4/3 has only been here for a few years, yet it's shipping more than a third of interchangeable lens cameras in Japan, perhaps the most photo-forward country of all.

But, we will see. I'm going to try to stick a snapshot to this file, to illustrate what I'm talking about...but I haven't done this much, and don't know how it will work: Nikon 70-200 f2.8 on the left, m4/3 35-100 f2.8 on right.
 

[dudu307]

But, we will see. I'm going to try to stick a snapshot to this file, to illustrate what I'm talking about...but I haven't done this much, and don't know how it will work: Nikon 70-200 f2.8 on the left, m4/3 35-100 f2.8 on right.

Not a fair comparison and you know it. Show me an om-d with a 35-100 f1.4 or a 70-200 f5.6 (or a variable f4-5,6) mounted on a sony a7r and we can talk about camera size, file quality and depth of field control.

Regards

[barryfitzgerald]

The DOF argument is a valid point (for some shooters)
It's not that you can't get shallow DOF on micro 4/3, you can with very fast lenses.

You never get that focal length compression effect that you do on full frame, it is very different it's not just about aperture or equivalence of DOF but focal length effects.
Put a 100mm lens on micro 4/3 and you have a field of view of a 200mm lens, it's not even close to full frame in that respect (even if you have the speed to achieve shallow DOF) It's true APS-C is a compromise too, just not as much of one..and with 1.5 crop the effects of focal length is reduced but not nearly as much as micro 4/3 is.

It might not matter to everyone though, horses for courses as they say.
For me I find the ability to use my FF lenses on my APS-C bodies (most are useful, some less so) I can run straight into full frame at any time as most of my lenses are full frame. That is a key advantage. If you're in micro 4/3 land, that's it..APS-C users can intermix with FF lenses as and when required. As well as pick up a huge variety of s/h lenses with autofocus, and aperture control.

As for size yes I see for some it matters a lot and nobody doubts that advantage, nor the "good enough" aspect to IQ as well (has to be noted Olympus are overstating their ISO figures significantly according to DxO)
But then again with an APS-C body and a 17-50mm f2.8 runs quite a bit smaller and lighter than a FF body and a 24-70mm f2.8 so it's down to how smaller or lighter your needs are.

Honestly there is nothing wrong with micro 4/3 it's an excellent choice for many. I personally find the prices on the bodies to their biggest problem.
I was playing with a Lumix GM1 the other day, nice little camera the sort of thing you might pick up even if you are a DSLR user. A camera to take out for the day with good IQ.
Then you look at the price tag, and they want higher than APS-C DSLR's for it £600..so you wander off and lose interest. And no need to mention there is no VF either which again puzzled me on the cost of the camera (no VF= cheaper to make)

What's wrong with micro 4/3 is they have to be better priced, smaller sensor = pay less. FF = bigger sensor pay more. Makes sense to me. Small is fine, just don't expect me to pay a hefty premium for it. Ditto on the Sony RX100 II, nice enough camera just seriously overpriced.

Every time I see one of these offerings I just buy another DSLR for peanuts 

[Telecaster]

As other folks have correctly pointed out the DOF argument is a non-issue except in extreme cases. I've seen a lovely portrait of a young girl taken by David Noton with a 24/1.4 wide open on a Canon 1Ds something-or-other. I've also seen creative portrait/fashion work done with 200/2 lenses on 35mm format...I bet BC has some examples. I own a Nikon 400/3.5...no slouch in the subject isolation sweepstakes on any camera if you don't mind the perspective compression. But my own most-used shallow DOF lenses throughout my pic-taking life have been 85 or 90mm f/2s on rangefinder cameras. Cosina's m43 Voigtländer 42.5/0.95 has that territory covered nicely. (And, yes, 42.5mm doesn't offer as much inherent magnification as 85mm. There's a difference, if subtle, in look when each is offering the same coverage. But IMO this is esoteric territory...objective "better" or "worse" don't apply.)

If you think only m43 lenses can be used on m43 cameras you're very mistaken. I can use every SLR lens I own (except the Zeiss Contaflexes...they don't adapt to anything). Even my medium format Pentaxes. Some work better than others, for sure. With the Yashica/Contax-mount Metabones SpeedBooster I get wider-than-APS-C coverage with each lens along with a one-stop increase in speed. A welcome side effect of the SpeedBooster is a dramatic improvement in corner performance with wider lenses.

The other side of having a set of f/0.95 lenses is that they're f/0.95! Sheer photon-gathering ability in low light is nice to have, particularly combined with Olympus' sensor-based stabilization. On m43 you get usable DOF along with the lens speed, especially with the Voigt 17.5mm. This offsets the somewhat noisy performance of m43 sensors at high ISOs.

Note that this is all irrelevant anyway to the vast majority of camera owners, with their f/3.5–5.6 kit lenses.

People should use what they like. But IMO they should also experiment when possible. New discoveries and new experiences are enriching, photography-wise and otherwise. I find it hard to take seriously arguments for or against any camera system made by anyone who has never used that system in earnest. Experience OTOH carries weight.

As usual these discussions are more about self-identity and perceived challenges to same than about photography. I Am My Stuff!   

(Note too that I was partly jesting re. folding rangefinders. I do plan to get a Bessa III but I'll hardly be abandoning everything else. Too much fun to be had!)

-Dave-

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... You never get that focal length compression effect that you do on full frame, it is very different it's not just about aperture or equivalence of DOF but focal length effects... it's not even close to full frame in that respect (even if you have the speed to achieve shallow DOF)...

Care to back it up with something else other than words?

[BJL]

You never get that focal length compression effect that you do on full frame, it is very different it's not just about aperture or equivalence of DOF but focal length effects.

That long-lens compression is all about narrow angular field of view; you get the same effect with 300mm in 4/3" format as with 600mm in 35mm format. (One difference is that many of us find it easier to afford and carry a 300mm lens than a 600mm lens!)

To put it another way, you get the same perspective (and DOF) effects with
a) a lens of a given focal length and aperture on 4/3" format
b) a lens of the same focal length and aperture combined with a 2x TC and used with 35mm format (or a lens of twice the focal length and twice the f-stop),
if compared on prints of the same size, because the entire image (including OOF effects and diffraction effects) is simply doubled in size to fill the double-size sensor.  This equivalence is easy to show with basic optics, or with photographic examples.

[John Camp]

Not a fair comparison and you know it. Show me an om-d with a 35-100 f1.4 or a 70-200 f5.6 (or a variable f4-5,6) mounted on a sony a7r and we can talk about camera size, file quality and depth of field control.

Regards

http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/2/

[Manoli]

… m4/3 has only been here for a few years, yet it's shipping more than a third of interchangeable lens cameras in Japan, perhaps the most photo-forward country of all.

To be precise, NOT m4/3 , but mirrorless - and that includes APS-C. The recently released FF Sony A7, will further dilute the Olympus percentage of that 'mirrorless' ILC figure in the coming year.

[Telecaster]

Not a fair comparison and you know it. Show me an om-d with a 35-100 f1.4 or a 70-200 f5.6 (or a variable f4-5,6) mounted on a sony a7r and we can talk about camera size, file quality and depth of field control.

How 'bout showing me an 85mm f/0.95 "full frame" lens so we can talk about light-gathering equivalence.

Better yet, let's not. This is all about identity, posturing and Look At My Big One nonsense. The E-M1 gets Michael's Best New Camera of the year award and some folks take it as an existential threat. WTF?! Maybe we need to spend less time defining ourselves with our gear, whatever it is, and more time using it.

I've attached a pure record shot, taken last night at 8pm to show my friend Kirsten in LA the view outside my house. I'd just finished shoveling snow, and it was -9° C with a bit of wind. I used an E-M1, Voigtländer 17.5/0.95 lens wide open, 1/20th sec. at ISO 1000. All for fun, as (unless you're a pro working to someone else's brief) it should be.

Cheers!

-Dave-