Thread: Has m43 finally lived up to the promise?

Originally Posted by BillN

great shot - but I bet you are annoyed because of the half wing on the top plane

Too right :(
But I had plenty of others

The huge advantage of m4/3 is that while I was using a 600mm equivalent lens about 7 inches long ,those around with Canon/Nikon gear had lenses up to four times the weight.
As I get older I appreciate that but m4/3 is also a better bet for Air Travel Handluggage.

hmmm.

I originally bought into m4/3 with the full expectation that it was going to be a compromise of size & portability against "image quality". At the time this was about the availability of fast long lenses rather than other IQ issues such as noise and DR, which really I was too inexperienced with digital to make a judgement about.

Two years on, my "needs" (I probably mean "wants"!) have changed as my experience and understanding has increased, but also as my "style" has changed. I have come to recognise that my E-P2 has significant limitations in noise performance (at the sub-1600 level - I rarely if ever want nor need to shot above that, and I usually stick to 160) and DR.

Nevertheless, it's still the camera I want to pick up and use.

As the system has developed, there have been some wonderful lenses released (none of which I can afford for the foreseeable future), but I have yet to be persuaded that any of the bodies (including the vaunted E-M5) offer a significant improvement in the areas where my E-P2 is lacking. I don't want more pixels, a touch screen or ISO25600. I do want noise-free shadows and unblown skies at ISO200.

So I guess I'm with Brian on this one (except I can't compare to what a digital M does ... )

I'll continue to use my E-P2 more than my Sigma or Bessa, because I love it and I can work within it's limitations. If I can ever afford it I'll buy the 12mm as well. But in the meantime, I've just ordered 10 rolls of Fomapan 100 ...

I had a G1 and was disappointed in it's focus lock speed and high ISO performance. I had the 14-45 and 45-200 lens I ordered with the cam so I went all in. I did fall in love with the EVF though.

Then along comes Sony with their SLT cams and I moved on to APS-C and super fast and accurate phase detect auto focus.

Some day, phase detect auto focus will be obsolete. Just not yet.

Originally Posted by Boid

I was never interested in the m4/3 setup which I feel was a 'created' format-size right from it's film days. I didn't (and still don't) see the logic in the sensor size. To me it's a 'toy camera' for DSLR users who find lugging around their big cameras a bit of a chore. And everyone seems to be buying in to this marketing bullshit. It will always play catch up to the big DSLRs, and will always be second best when compared to a DSLRs in their current avatars.

To me (this is only my opinion) the only conversation that is worth having is on image quality. And mu43 is certainly not the answer now, nor will it ever be, because it's crippled itself in selected a limiting sensor size, that defines it's genre. Unless of course through some reversal of the laws of physics, having a bigger sensor that captures more light becomes a bad thing.

Sure, it might be "good enough" for most people. That's not much of a debate.

Until you consider that the VAST majority of all of the great photographs taken through history were taken with gear far less technically advanced than today's amazing cameras. To me , if "the only conversation worth having is on image quality" that's a really boring conversation to have and one that rejects about 99% of the great photographs taken through photography's still relatively short history. To me, image quality beyond a certain point of "good enough" is all marketing bullshit. I'm usually too polite to say that and figure to each their own, but if you're gonna call my camera choices "toys" I'll be happy to call your oversize behemoths sorry substitutes for size..... oh, never mind.

But I actually do feel "to each his own" so maybe we can stop calling each other names and just talk. To ME the key ingredient in EVERY great photograph is getting the shot and having it communicate a vision. There are a lot of technical advances that make this easier today than ever before in most cases, but the difference in image quality between the best DSLR and the best APS and the best m43 is getting down to a level of meaninglessness in all but the most extreme circumstances. There are things you can do with a top DSLR that you can't do with an m43 camera and if those matter to you you should use one. But the reverse is also true - there are shots I'm faaar likelier to get with an m43 than a big DSLR and so it becomes the better tool for those. For that matter some of my favorite photographs were taken with the much smaller sensor GRD3 and even a few withcell phones. The image quality is so good in all of these cameras today that it's frankly about the last consideration I'd worry about. If its the most important thing to you, by all means knock yourself out. Just remember that just because it's your key criteria doesn't make it the only one that matters.

-Ray

Originally Posted by texascbx

Then along comes Sony with their SLT cams and I moved on to APS-C and super fast and accurate phase detect auto focus.

Some day, phase detect auto focus will be obsolete. Just not yet.

You should have hung in there a little longer. The ONLY area where I'd prefer a good phase detect system over the contrast detect systems in the current crop of m43 cameras and lenses is for subject tracking, particularly in burst mode. CDAF clearly hasn't caught up there, but it's every bit as fast in single shot mode and it's MORE accurate without any of the back-focus issues you can run into with phase detect. I tried an SLT briefly right about when the GH2 was coming out and, compared to the prior m43 bodies, the SLT was night and day better. But the GH2 almost completely closed that gap and the current crop are even somewhat better. Compared to the G1 you're clearly right, but m43 cams of today are NOTHING like those of two years ago - not even playing in the same league.

-Ray

I feel like we're beating a dead horse here. For me (as Ray points out), the differences in pure IQ are small enough to be meaningless. I wish m4/3 could have tracking focus and be able to do sports photography. That's about the only thing that (for me) the format just doesn't do well enough.

But I also believe that it lived up to it's promise with the release of the very first cameras. The promise was smallish cameras with quality that approached the big cameras. Basically, the trade-off is worth it for some and not for others. Choose ultimate quality or portability.....you don't get both.

Originally Posted by Ray

You should have hung in there a little longer. The ONLY area where I'd prefer a good phase detect system over the contrast detect systems in the current crop of m43 cameras and lenses is for subject tracking, particularly in burst mode. CDAF clearly hasn't caught up there, but it's every bit as fast in single shot mode and it's MORE accurate without any of the back-focus issues you can run into with phase detect. I tried an SLT briefly right about when the GH2 was coming out and, compared to the prior m43 bodies, the SLT was night and day better. But the GH2 almost completely closed that gap and the current crop are even somewhat better. Compared to the G1 you're clearly right, but m43 cams of today are NOTHING like those of two years ago - not even playing in the same league.

-Ray

Ray, I'm sure that you've noticed as much as I that it is quite a common occurrence to form an opinion of Micro 4/3 based on trying one of the original bodies and then assuming that nothing has changed since. I certainly feel like a right idiot for having bought an E-M5 when it clearly has the same autofocus, dynamic range, and noise as an E-P1!

Originally Posted by Archiver

Does anyone else feel this way? Have you held off from m43 until recently? Are you now more confident in the m43 format now with the OM-D and current lens line up?

I was a longtime 4/3 user before m4/3. I'm now on my 3rd go with m4/3, and by and large I'm pleased. Moreover, I think that unlike 4/3, m4/3 will be around for a good while. The sensor has reached the point of sufficiency - it's not quite as good as the better APS-C ones, but it's good enough to satisfy 95% of the time, which is to say an awful lot better than the old 12 and 10MP Panasonic sensors. The bodies also have reliable S-AF, a serious problem 4/3 never truly dealt with. C-AF still isn't there yet, but it's not an application I make any real use of.

But the promise of m4/3 to me - being what 4/3 promised but failed to do - is still not quite there yet. They managed to solve almost all the problems of 4/3, but they lost a key advantage in the process - high quality affordable zoom lenses. The 4/3 'high grade' zoom line was the crown jewel of the system - sharp, well built, and reasonably fast, for a price that made sense. That something m4/3 badly lacks. Unfortunately, there are no indications that this will change any time soon.

DH

Nic I hope that's not a comment in relation to my post because that's not my position at all. But as I'm not in a position to buy and try for 3 months I have to rely on published raws and shadow noise in those looks only a tiny bit better than my ep2.

Originally Posted by pdh

Nic I hope that's not a comment in relation to my post because that's not my position at all. But as I'm not in a position to buy and try for 3 months I have to rely on published raws and shadow noise in those looks only a tiny bit better than my ep2.

No, it wasn't a response to your post, but just an observation that I have made in numerous places around the net. For instance, you wouldn't logically rate the current level of autofocus based on trying an E-P1 3 years ago, and you wouldn't logically judge the current level of sensor noise based on trying a G1 almost four years, yet it happens. No harm though since it doesn't really effect what I do.