Micro 4/3 Comparison

[Unknown303]

I'm wondering what people think about the 4/3 market and which camera if any is really standing out on top currently. I'm considering picking one up so that I have something more compact to haul around with me.

I'm more of less looking at the new Panasonic GF2 but am wondering if I should be looking at the other contenders a little more? Also noticed the Olympus E-PL2 is priced quite well too. And with a little more search I don't see much for other manufacturers...

[kvg]

I just purchased a GF1, I preferred it over the epl2 and gf2. One thing the Olympus has over the Panasonic is in body stabilization so with manual lenses its better.

[AccentAE86]

I do like the controls of the gf1 personally; it goes well with my photo nerdiness. But I have to admit I would really like in body stabilization. It would especially be a huge help for video. i just tried the GF2 at the canadian professional imaging tradeshow last week in banff and the touchscreen focusing is pretty awesome, but they got rid of my MOST used button, which is the rear AF button! So I'm still quite happy with the GF1. Though if someone wanted a new cam, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the GF2, provided that you get the body ONLY and get the 20 1.7 separately rather than the 17 2.5 that comes with the GF2. The 20 1.7 is one of the reasons I love the GF1 (and m43 format) so much.

[Mitsu3000gt]

IMO E-PL2 > GF1 > GF2, those are really the only 3 worthy players in the M4/3 market.

The E-PL2 has in body stabilization and by far the best JPEG engine of the three. The Panasonic JPEG engine is very weak, and much criticized by Pany users (cyan-looking skies is one of the worst offending areas there). If you shoot RAW this is not an issue however.

The controls on the GF1 are better than the GF2 and it's also physically slightly larger. The GF2 also has a touch screen which I would personally hate but that is totally subjective. I much prefer hard buttons.

RAW image quality is very similar among the three. If you're going to shoot RAW only, the differences are mostly ergonomic aside from the E-PL2 in-body stabilization.

With anything more than a pancake lens these cameras are still fairly bulky and would require a separate case (unless you're cool with throwing a camera with protruding lens unprotected in a backpack or whatever). So, if you are getting more than just the pancake lens I would suggest just buying a compact lens for your DSLR instead.

[AccentAE86]

I don't know why people think you cannot put a non pancake lens on an evil cam if you want to throw it into a backpack, bag or purse. I throw it in a diaper bag with a rather bulky lens all the time. When I was toting a rebel around as a small cam, it was still MUCH less portable than my GF1 + bulky lens.

[rage2]

I've spent a lot of time with both the GF1 and GF2. The touch screen focus on the GF2, fucking awesome. I don't miss the extra controls on the GF1 anymore, since I'm always using 1 or 2 modes. Switching is easy on the touchscreen.

The key physical controls are still there. Flash, ISO, WB for quick adjustments.

Still sucks that the video (claimed 60fps) is really 30fps. It records at 60fps, but the sensor outputs at 30fps, so every 2 frames are identical.

The iA button is awesome too. I don't remember it on the GF1 for some reason... great for a quick decision snapshot if don't have the time to set the shot up.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by AccentAE86
I don't know why people think you cannot put a non pancake lens on an evil cam if you want to throw it into a backpack, bag or purse. I throw it in a diaper bag with a rather bulky lens all the time. When I was toting a rebel around as a small cam, it was still MUCH less portable than my GF1 + bulky lens.

I guess I am just way more anal than most people but I would never throw a camera + protruding lens unprotected into a bag like a backpack, diaper bag, etc. If you are willing to do that, then at least for me, I see absolutely no difference in throwing a compact DSLR + lens in that same diaper bag and you'll have a way better camera to use whenever you decide to pull it out.

Obviously everyone is going to be a little different but I don't consider the size difference to be nearly as significant as some of you guys do unless you're wanting to carry it in your pocket or something.

[blitz]

It's when you start adding another lens or two that the size jumps considerably between DSLR and m43.

Compare

GF-1, 14-42mm, 9-18mm, 55-200mm

with

D5100, 18-55mm, 10-24mm, 70-300mm.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
I guess I am just way more anal than most people but I would never throw a camera + protruding lens unprotected into a bag like a backpack, diaper bag, etc.
GF1/2 with the pancake lens fits in my pants pocket lol. I treat it like a POS camera but with DSLR quality.

Yea, not anal at all here haha.

[kvg]

Originally posted by rage2

GF1/2 with the pancake lens fits in my pants pocket lol.

Dude what kinds Pants fit a GF1/2?

Oh wait......

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_y-sM2JbvJaE/TSArB83nRjI/AAAAAAAAAGY/Xwt01X8MWfI/s1600/mc-hammer.jpg

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by blitz
It's when you start adding another lens or two that the size jumps considerably between DSLR and m43.

Compare

GF-1, 14-42mm, 9-18mm, 55-200mm

with

D5100, 18-55mm, 10-24mm, 70-300mm.

So are you guys with the M4/3 stuff building full systems then, and carrying multiple lenses? I thought most people just had one lens or the pancake, which is why I often try to make a comparison between a compact DSLR and a 35 or 50mm prime or something.

If you are carrying 3 lenses around with you, you for sure need a separate bag unless you just throw the loose lenses in the diaper bag or whatever as well.

If you use a 55-300 or 55-200 in place of that 70-300 in the DSLR comparison it's actually a fairly compact kit still - probably not as small as the M4/3 stuff but still very manageable with a small bag. It's a common combo for travel.

The M4/3 stuff with a pancake will fit in a decent sized pocket though, that is something a DSLR will never be able to do.

I guess, for me personally, the advantages of a DSLR and the minimal (IMO) size/weight increase is more than worth it for the performance advantages. Everyone's different.

[kvg]

Carrying my gf1 with my 20mm vs borrowing my brother in laws 7d with a 50mm, or even with a zoom lens on them there is a HUGE difference in size.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by kvg
Carrying my gf1 with my 20mm vs borrowing my brother in laws 7d with a 50mm, or even with a zoom lens on them there is a HUGE difference in size.

Yeah I'm talking more like a D3100 or D5100 and a prime or compact zoom rather than a big camera like a 7D or a D300. I'm just trying to compare it to the lightest combo one could make with a DSLR. A D3100 actually weighs pretty well the same as some of the M3/4 stuff and size is slightly larger but if it's going in a bag anyways, I personally don't see the big difference at all. You reach into the bag and grab the camera when you want to use it - weight is about the same. Neither is large. Put it back in the bag when you're done.

I completely agree though if you plan on pocketing it or whatever a DSLR is out of the question. My only point is if it's going in a bag anyways, I don't see the point of M4/3 given how much better an entry level DSLR is technically (such as the D5100, for example).

[rage2]

haha still going off on how much better the D5100 is compared to m4/3. Seriously, I'm comparing my GF1/2 to my 5Dm2, and it's not as big of a gap as you imply.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by rage2
haha still going off on how much better the D5100 is compared to m4/3. Seriously, I'm comparing my GF1/2 to my 5Dm2, and it's not as big of a gap as you imply.

I completely understand the size differences, the ability to pocket a GF2 w/pancake, etc. My only point is for those who are going to be carrying around a bag or a bag full of lenses anyways. I am absolutely not trying to tell everyone looking at M4/3 to go buy a DSLR instead. I seem to be coming off that way but it's not my intention. I actually almost bought a M4/3 myself.

And to your point about the D5100, I guess it completely depends on how picky you are but I don't think you're very picky if you think there isn't a big performance gap between a GF2 and a D5100. There is nothing wrong with that, each to their own, but to many the difference is enormous.

[blitz]

There's a difference, and it's actually pretty big.

D40 with compact zoom vs EPL-1 with compact zoom. The D40 with lens is a lot heavier in hand.

If I asked my wife to put the EPL-1 in her purse, she's say ok. If I asked her to put the D40 in there I'd get a glare.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t191/FrinkOctane/DSC_8051.jpg

[rage2]

^ That's it? I personally don't see the big difference at all. :rofl:

[Mitsu3000gt]

Not sure why everyone keeps trying to tell me a M4/3 is smaller than a DSLR and waste their time trying to prove it with pics, I've acknowledged that many times :dunno:. My point is, and has always been, if you are going to carry a separate bag around for your M4/3 stuff the difference between that and a compact DSLR is not worth the performance loss, in my opinion only. If you need it to fit in a pocket or tiny purse, obviously the DSLR won't cut it. The OP asked for opinions, i was simply giving mine :). The way I see it, if I am going to be inconvenienced with an extra bag anyways, it might as well have my DSLR in it. I have a P&S for when I need a pocketable camera because I won't put something in my pocket that has a lens cap or a protruding lens.

[dragonone]

i totally agree. i can only see the size thing being a factor for ppl with smaller hands or if weight is a concern. i don't know anyone that abuses their camera to its full potential anymore. everyone babies their equipment.

there's some sort of novelty with m4/3's. ppl love buying manual lenses and adapters to use on them, even more than the average dslr users. check this (http://www.revscene.net/forums/showpost.php?p=7371234&postcount=17) guy out. he uses them exclusively on his nex5. at one meet they even put a TS-E on the nex5 it was pretty cool.

i'm not entirely sold on the iso performance of the m4/3's tho. someone (http://www.revscene.net/forums/showpost.php?p=7399795&postcount=1863) that owned both a LX5 and EPL1 thought the LX5 was better in this category, and i'm reading that the s95 is ever so slightly better than the lx5 in this regard - and i'm not entirely happy with the s95's iso performance. :nut: maybe the GF1/2 and epl2 is better?:dunno: or maybe we are not comparing the FF sensor with the m4/3 at its extremes:devil:

[kvg]

I love using manual lenses, but that had sweet little to do with my purchase. The everyday size and IQ sold me.

http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/i372/Phoneography/8368c64c.jpg

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by dragonone

i'm not entirely sold on the iso performance of the m4/3's tho. someone (http://www.revscene.net/forums/showpost.php?p=7399795&postcount=1863) that owned both a LX5 and EPL1 thought the LX5 was better in this category, and i'm reading that the s95 is ever so slightly better than the lx5 in this regard - and i'm not entirely happy with the s95's iso performance. :nut: maybe the GF1/2 and epl2 is better?:dunno: or maybe we are not comparing the FF sensor with the m4/3 at its extremes:devil:

LX5 ISO performance is worse than even your Canon S95 but neither are quite as good as a GF1/2. A well processed S95 RAW file can look pretty incredible considering it came from a P&S but M4/3 is still slightly better. The gap is smaller between M4/3 and a P&S camera than M4/3 and a DSLR. None are completely fair comparisons though because sensor size is so different. The E-PL2 has the best ISO performance of the M4/3 cameras in question.

How are you processing your S95 RAW files? Adobe's latest camera raw does a pretty amazing job with them, I am very pleased with the results up to ISO 1600 considering it's just a P&S camera. JPEG is quite a bit worse than a processed RAW file. The files just need a touch of chroma noise reduction, not much else.


I am bored this morning so I pulled off a few RAW comparisons of the cameras in question using DPreview's comparison tool:

Here is ISO 1600. The S95 and GF2 look most comparable, with the LX5 being quite a bit behind. They are not even comparable to the APS-C camera.

http://mschlosser.smugmug.com/photos/i-vBtrRSB/0/XL/i-vBtrRSB-XL.png

Here is 3200, you can see in the shadows the LX5 and GF2 are doing quite poorly, bordering on unrecognizable. The S95 is actually holding on better in this particular sample.

http://mschlosser.smugmug.com/photos/i-3dSGrpP/0/XL/i-3dSGrpP-XL.png

Here is a more normal comparison at 1600. The S95, LX5, and GF2 actually look pretty similar.

http://mschlosser.smugmug.com/photos/i-c4gghbH/0/XL/i-c4gghbH-XL.png

Here's another one at 3200 but not completely in the shadows this time. The GF2 is holding a bit more detail than the S95 and LX5 but it's pretty close.

http://mschlosser.smugmug.com/photos/i-RK9S94b/0/XL/i-RK9S94b-XL.png

[blitz]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
Not sure why everyone keeps trying to tell me a M4/3 is smaller than a DSLR and waste their time trying to prove it with pics, I've acknowledged that many times :dunno:. My point is, and has always been, if you are going to carry a separate bag around for your M4/3 stuff the difference between that and a compact DSLR is not worth the performance loss, in my opinion only. If you need it to fit in a pocket or tiny purse, obviously the DSLR won't cut it. The OP asked for opinions, i was simply giving mine :). The way I see it, if I am going to be inconvenienced with an extra bag anyways, it might as well have my DSLR in it. I have a P&S for when I need a pocketable camera because I won't put something in my pocket that has a lens cap or a protruding lens.

But you could use this arguement to say that if you're carrying a bag you might as well have a D3s in it instead of a GF1. You have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and m43 to DSLR is the most obvious place to do it.

It's smaller lighter, takes up less room and doesn't need a dedicated camera bag. Purse, murse, diapter bag, daypack etc.

I understand what you're saying, but there and TON's of people buying m43 and similar systems because they like the size vs performance trade offs.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by blitz


But you could use this arguement to say that if you're carrying a bag you might as well have a D3s in it instead of a GF1. You have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and m43 to DSLR is the most obvious place to do it.

It's smaller lighter, takes up less room and doesn't need a dedicated camera bag. Purse, murse, diapter bag, daypack etc.

I understand what you're saying, but there and TON's of people buying m43 and similar systems because they like the size vs performance trade offs.

I agree with you, the line has to be drawn somewhere. That is where personal preference comes in, as there is no obvious place. A P&S like the S95 is smaller than M4/3, which is smaller than a compact DSLR, which is considerably smaller than a D3 series camera. M4/3 owners obviously draw that line between M4/3 and DSLR. There is definitely a size gap. For the same reason a lot of D3s size camera owners own a smaller APS-C camera for portability, less weight, travel, etc.

For me, I either have a giant camera bag, or nothing haha, so that is why I have a DSLR and a P&S. If I carried a small purse (or was always with someone who did) and needed my camera in there, then yeah M4/3 would make more sense. I am also probably more concerned about performance than the average user, and the gap is much larger between a M4/3 and a DSLR than it is between a P&S and a M4/3 so I choose to carry around the larger DSLR stuff even when it's inconvenient for the performance benefits.

[kvg]

Your a pixel peeper that explains everything. LOL:thumbsup:

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by kvg
Your a pixel peeper that explains everything. LOL:thumbsup:

Haha I am likely more picky than most, but the difference between almost no noise/lots of detail and being a totally unrecognizable blob of color blotching should be obvious to even a casual user :) . If you cannot see a big difference, then no matter what you buy you will be thrilled, which is all that matters in the end.

[dragonone]

:thumbsup: thnx for the comparisons. i was just expecting the m4/3s to beat P&S in all areas, and definitely not expecting them to come close to a dslr at higher iso's.

[flipstah]

Instead of creating a new thread, I'll bump this.

What are the new Micro 4/3 DSLR's that are big contenders this year? I'm looking to get one to supplement my Konica film gear and M4/3 has an adapter to fit Konica lenses.

[kvg]

I have owned numerous bodies and the OMD will be the best for legacy glass with the IBS. Just remember the 2x crop factor.

[kvg]

If you don't care about Stabilization maybe check out the Fuji camera's because they are as good or better that some of the new FF cameras. I find the OMD comparable to my 5D mkii for high iso.

[flipstah]

It'll be on low-light duty so stabilization would be a HUGE benefit. :thumbsup:

[jsn]

I heard alot of good things about the OMD. I was considering it, but it was out of my price range. I settled for a panasonic gx1 instead.

[flipstah]

Oh damn, it looks old-school too:

https://www.thecamerastore.com/products/olympus/olympus-om-d-em-5-body-silver

But $976? Whoa... :eek:

Is the Sony NEX-6 any good? They make Konica adapters to this camera as well:

https://www.thecamerastore.com/products/sony/sony-nex-6-body-black


Originally posted by jsn
I heard alot of good things about the OMD. I was considering it, but it was out of my price range. I settled for a panasonic gx1 instead.

Working out well so far? I don't know if the M4/3 is the same mounting or if it's brand-proprietary.

[jsn]

Yea the OMD is definitely pricey. The body alone costs 400 more than what I paid for the gx1 plus the 14-42mm power lense. I believe the Sony camera lenses are brand-proprietary, but the olympus and panasonics have interchangeable lenses. If you need the in-body image stability though, the panasonics probably won't work for you. The Image stability is built into the lenses for the panasonics, not the body. Because of this, you wont have image stability if you use an Oly lense with a panasonic body.

I think the GX1 is great, but I'm really new to photography so I wouldn't read too much into my opinion haha. I just know what features they had since I compared a few when I bought mine.

[kvg]

Originally posted by flipstah
It'll be on low-light duty so stabilization would be a HUGE benefit. :thumbsup:

The stabilization works insanely well on it.


Originally posted by jsn
I heard alot of good things about the OMD. I was considering it, but it was out of my price range. I settled for a panasonic gx1 instead.

I had the GX1 and it's a great camera, but the OMD is a noticeably better camera.

[jsn]

Originally posted by kvg
I had the GX1 and it's a great camera, but the OMD is a noticeably better camera.

All the reviews I've read had the same conclusion. However, it was more than double what I paid for the gx1 once I included a lense, so I settled for the GX1. Also, the GX1 is a bit smaller due to the lack of a built in view finder, so it suited my budget and needs better for a travel camera.

[kvg]

For me I have more than I m43 body so I have a smaller one as well. One great thing about Panasonic bodies is it has lens correction built in and the gx1 is a killer deal new or used right now.

[rage2]

Now that I've used my GX1 for quite some time, I've been impressed at it's low light high ISO performance. The GF1/2 was pretty weak in that area, and the GX1 is much better. It's nowhere near the quality of a DSLR though, especially full frame. m4/3 sensor still outputs lots of lost details (even with RAW) on anything that's deep shadows or highlights.

I haven't been able to find any real comparisons on the review sites specifically in low light/high ISO environments. All of the high ISO tests seems to be in lit conditions. Anyone know what the limiting factor is for this environment? Is it sensor size/density? Curious if m4/3 will ever approach crop or even full frame performance in this area.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by rage2
Anyone know what the limiting factor is for this environment? Is it sensor size/density? Curious if m4/3 will ever approach crop or even full frame performance in this area.

It's basically sensor size. Same reason most P&S cameras are complete garbage in that department. Larger photo sites collect more light data and can therefore produce better ISO performance. The second advantage is you can pack way more pixels into them before they approach the quality of a smaller sensor (i.e. something like a D800 has roughly the same pixel density as a 16MP APS-C camera). M43 and APS-C are getting pretty good though, and some APS-C sensors are almost caught up in the dynamic range department.

On-chip A/D conversions helps a lot too, and not all manufactures do that. Gapless microlenses are another thing that make a difference, however most manufacturers use those now to direct more light into each photosite.

[clem24]

Originally posted by kvg
If you don't care about Stabilization maybe check out the Fuji camera's because they are as good or better that some of the new FF cameras. I find the OMD comparable to my 5D mkii for high iso.

Played with an XE-1 and AF is absolutely HORRENDOUS indoors, even under incandescent lighting. It was constantly hunting, and I'd say only HALF the times it would acquire focus. Neither my GX1 or my GF3 have this problem. The sensor is stupidly amazing, but what good is that if I can't get the shots I want?

Also, after having used the touchscreen on the GX1 and GF3, a non-touchscreen just feels to antiquated; on the XE-1, you have to use buttons to choose your predetermined focus points while the Pannys have infinite points. XE-1 would've been high tech in 2003...

The new E-P5 sounds awesome though.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
It's basically sensor size. Same reason most P&S cameras are complete garbage in that department. Larger photo sites collect more light data and can therefore produce better ISO performance. The second advantage is you can pack way more pixels into them before they approach the quality of a smaller sensor (i.e. something like a D800 has roughly the same pixel density as a 16MP APS-C camera). M43 and APS-C are getting pretty good though, and some APS-C sensors are almost caught up in the dynamic range department.

On-chip A/D conversions helps a lot too, and not all manufactures do that. Gapless microlenses are another thing that make a difference, however most manufacturers use those now to direct more light into each photosite.
Yea, that's what I figured. Reason I brought it up is because if I use low aperture and high ISO in daytime, it doesn't suffer from this problem. The RAWs have just as much shadow and highlight recovery details. It's just low light, wide aperture, and high ISO to stay around the 1/10 shutter speed so I don't have to tripod it where it seems to lose boatloads of data.

[kvg]

Originally posted by clem24


Played with an XE-1 and AF is absolutely HORRENDOUS indoors, even under incandescent lighting. It was constantly hunting, and I'd say only HALF the times it would acquire focus. Neither my GX1 or my GF3 have this problem. The sensor is stupidly amazing, but what good is that if I can't get the shots I want?


Your bang on about the ad being garbage, that's why I sold my x100 after only a week, but if he's getting it mainly for legacy glass af won't matter.

[flipstah]

Originally posted by kvg


Your bang on about the ad being garbage, that's why I sold my x100 after only a week, but if he's getting it mainly for legacy glass af won't matter.

Yeah AF doesn't matter and I think Image Stabilization only works for new glass as well. Or am I out to lunch?

[kvg]

Originally posted by flipstah


Yeah AF doesn't matter and I think Image Stabilization only works for new glass as well. Or am I out to lunch?

I use legacy glass on the OMD and the ibs is a god send:love: It works perfect, but you have to set the focal length manually. We can meet up if you want to try my old glass on a panasonic body and a Olympus body.

[clem24]

Supposedly the E-P5 will also feature contrast peaking? Would be THE feature to have for legacy glass.

[kvg]

True, that would be great to have and it has 1/8000 max shutter speed. It looks like it will be $1k without an evf:thumbsdow If it had a built in evf I would probably buy it.

[clem24]

Originally posted by kvg
True, that would be great to have and it has 1/8000 max shutter speed. It looks like it will be $1k without an evf:thumbsdow If it had a built in evf I would probably buy it.

I dunno I am all about size so if no EVF = more compact, then that's a win in my books.

[woodywoodford]

I don't know enough about the other camera's out there to say if they do/don't have it, but olympus's touchscreen focus is worth EVERY penny, at least for us guys who don't know how to use a "real" camera haha.

Honestly love my olympus e-pm2. Plus it still has that satisfying shutter "click", so it still feels like a real deal.

[TRD_jordan]

I've got the E-PM2 as well as i didn't have the budget at the time for an OMD, christmas time... dang! i got the E-PM2 mainly because it has the same sensor as the omd so picture quality cannot be too far off from the omd, that being said having a EVF and knobs would be a world of difference, I have gotten used to the camera and it's touchscreen navigating and taking shots w/o the EVF. all in all still a great camera if on a budget... for anyone looking at options outside of the gx-1

i think i will still be picking up an omd in the near future...haha!

[flipstah]

What's a fair price for these things? Not looking for a kit since I have my Hexanon lenses but if a kit lens is $100 more, why not?

Looking at The Camera Store site, the GF3 seems cheap at $375 w/lens but sold out. The G3 is even cheaper at $325 but only body and also sold out.

I'm just waiting for the adapter to come from Amazon before I start going around and looking at bodies.

[kvg]

get a camera with an evf for manual focusing

[Q-TIP]

Go Olympus with either the E-PM2 or E-PL5 and just buy one of the 3 EVFs that Olympus makes for them. The image quality, particularly in low light, really beats the current crop of Panasonic cameras. They both use the same sensor as the OMD but for a fraction the cost. Granted the OMD has a much nicer control layout and grip.

Also, the AF on the Oly cameras is damn near instantaneous.

Edited for model number correction.

[flipstah]

The OMD is so nice but WAY too expensive for what I'm looking for. I'm leaning towards the PL5 for the HD video capabilities. The G10 has been good to me but I've outgrown its offerings. Any recommendations for online stores or local is my best bet?

https://www.thecamerastore.com/mainproducts/olympus-e-pl5

[flipstah]

Originally posted by Q-TIP
Go Olympus with either the E-PM2 or E-PL5 and just buy one of the 3 EVFs that Olympus makes for them. The image quality, particularly in low light, really beats the current crop of Panasonic cameras. They both use the same sensor as the OMD but for a fraction the cost. Granted the OMD has a much nicer control layout and grip.

Also, the AF on the Oly cameras is damn near instantaneous.

Edited for model number correction.

Thanks! I got my adapter super early this week so I'll be scouting the land this weekend for an Olympus.

Either the E-PL5 ($569.95 at Vistek) or E-PM2 ($500) with a VF2 hotshoe adapter. Do you know the big difference between the two?

I'm looking for legacy lens capability and HD video.

That OMD looks mighty good but it's $1k... :eek:

[blitz]

The 2x crop factor can be troublesome for legacy glass. All of a sudden every lens you own is a telephoto.

[flipstah]

Originally posted by blitz
The 2x crop factor can be troublesome for legacy glass. All of a sudden every lens you own is a telephoto.

Aww crap. so that means my 50mm lens is now 100mm? :(

EDIT: Seems fine to me...

http://www.golftoimpress.com/olympus-om-d-e-m5-with-konica-hexanon-50mm-f1-7-legacy-lens/

Also, I like the way the OMD M5 looks more than the new generation.

[kvg]

EM5 with takumar 50/1.4 @2.8

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7443/9074053996_b022f5d237.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kellygibbonsemail/9074053996/)
Melissa (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kellygibbonsemail/9074053996/) by Kelly Gibbons (http://www.flickr.com/people/kellygibbonsemail/), on Flickr

@1.4 or f2

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5337/9021845902_330300a392.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kellygibbonsemail/9021845902/)
Honor Bound Tattoo 2013 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kellygibbonsemail/9021845902/) by Kelly Gibbons (http://www.flickr.com/people/kellygibbonsemail/), on Flickr


You will want to but native m43 glass for the wider stuff though.

[flipstah]

So pretty much, <35mm is useless.

I'll bring my set and see how it goes. I wonder what 400mm mirror lens would produce lol. 800mm FTW :rofl:

[taemo]

a 24mm legacy lens would work very well as a 48mm equiv lens but I guess there would be too much barrel distortion.
either way, there are lots of great standard m43 lens such as the oly 17 2.8, pana 14 2.5, pana 20 1.7, leica 25 1.4

[flipstah]

Now correct me if I'm wrong but film lens distance �doesn't equal DSLR lens distance (ie. my 50mm Hexanon lens won't be the same as an Olympus 50mm M4/3)

Is that right? What causes the difference in distance (if it's true)?

No experience in the DSLR world. Just P&S and film.

[taemo]

different camera mounts have different distance between the lens and film/sensor.

the distance between film and lens on a SLR is farther than on a leaf-shutter/rf camera
this is because there's a mirror in between the lens and film on a SLR camera and one of the reason why mirrorless adapters for SLR lens are usually bigger than rf lens.
and also why you can't easily put a rf lens on a slr body

[blitz]

Originally posted by flipstah


Aww crap. so that means my 50mm lens is now 100mm? :(

EDIT: Seems fine to me...

http://www.golftoimpress.com/olympus-om-d-e-m5-with-konica-hexanon-50mm-f1-7-legacy-lens/

Also, I like the way the OMD M5 looks more than the new generation.

The lenses will physically work well, but IMO a 2x crop factor makes it almost impossible to have a nice well rounded legacy kit.

A 24/2.8 on an OMD will be the equivalent FOV of a 50mm, but the bokeh of a 24/2.8 (which doesn't allow for much background seperation unless you'd up close).

Works great on telephoto, but getting any bokeh below 70mm equivalent is pretty hard, unless you go with the native m43 lenses (12/2, 17/1.8) for those focal lengths.

Sony NEX and Fuji X series have 1.5 factors, which is a lot more manageable.

[clem24]

Originally posted by flipstah
Now correct me if I'm wrong but film lens distance �doesn't equal DSLR lens distance (ie. my 50mm Hexanon lens won't be the same as an Olympus 50mm M4/3)


I think what you're really asking about is crop factor. Crop factor mostly has to do with the size of the sensor. The smaller the sensor, the smaller the area of the lens it will use. DSLR FF uses a sensor that is the same size as 35mm film, so it will use 100% of the lens. DSLR crop is a smaller sensor, hence using a smaller area of lens. m4/3 area is 1/4 the size of 35mm, hence 2x (i.e. only using 1/4 of the middle of the lens and discarding the rest). Maybe this illustrates better.

http://www.myphotocentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Digital-Sensor-Sizes.jpg

Back to the original argument - unless you're really after a "look" of a certain lens, legacy glass shouldn't really even be considered when choosing m4/3. There are sooooooo many good AND fast and (relatively) cheap lenses out there that you won't look back. Just about every m4/3 prime is TACK SHARP, small, and oh yeah, auto focuses.

[flipstah]

Well, it will definitely be a mix of legacy and new lenses. I just don't want to venture onto the DSLR if it means I have to start from scratch.

If that's the case, I may just opt to a newer 'pro' P&S but I want to give M4/3 a try. :)

That crop factor is what worries me and I have to see it for myself to know the drastic effects of it.

[clem24]

Originally posted by flipstah
That crop factor is what worries me and I have to see it for myself to know the drastic effects of it.

Take a picture using your 50mm lens that you have now. Using the template above, crop the image using the 4:3 outline. That will be your end result. No need to buy a camera to see what the effects will be. As mentioned before, it just turns your regular lens into a telephoto.

Again, I'd suggest you to forget about it. Crop on m4/3 is way too much unless a tele is what you're after. And again, native m4/3 glass is so good that it makes it pointless.

Here, same graph but with a picture behind it:

http://ovidiubuzziphotography.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/yosemite_park_005.jpg

Full frame sees the entire pic. Same lens mounted on a m4/3 would result in frame in yellow.

[flipstah]

Originally posted by clem24


Take a picture using your 50mm lens that you have now. Using the template above, crop the image using the 4:3 outline. That will be your end result. No need to buy a camera to see what the effects will be. As mentioned before, it just turns your regular lens into a telephoto.

Again, I'd suggest you to forget about it. Crop on m4/3 is way too much unless a tele is what you're after. And again, native m4/3 glass is so good that it makes it pointless.

Here, same graph but with a picture behind it:

http://ovidiubuzziphotography.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/yosemite_park_005.jpg

Full frame sees the entire pic. Same lens mounted on a m4/3 would result in frame in yellow.

Oh, I wasn't planning to buy it to see what the effects were. Just test drive it at the store and you'll see the effects but that graph/photo combination is a big indicator.

Well, I guess I'll probably still be heading M4/3 because the G10 is just outdated for what I want now.

[ga16i]

Originally posted by clem24


http://ovidiubuzziphotography.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/yosemite_park_005.jpg

Full frame sees the entire pic. Same lens mounted on a m4/3 would result in frame in yellow.

Not quite, the yellow frame in this picture isn't 4:3 ratio at all. Hell, it doesn't even look 3:2.

Shooting 4:3 is much closer to square and gives you more height in a landscape orientation and more width in a portrait orientation, exactly the same ratio as 645. Really depends what you shoot if 2X crop factor is good or bad. I don't often shoot wide, so a 28mm becoming a normal and a 50mm becoming a portrait lens wasn't a bad thing.

EDIT: oddly enough the outer rectangle marked full frame is actually quite close to 4:3 haha

[blitz]

Why not consider Sony NEX? They have body/lens combos starting at $399, a 1.5 crop factor and focus peaking for use with legacy glass.

[flipstah]

Originally posted by blitz
Why not consider Sony NEX? They have body/lens combos starting at $399, a 1.5 crop factor and focus peaking for use with legacy glass.

I'm pretty game for whatever works with the legacy glass, really. Can do HD video too so that could be a big contender.

I was researching the Fuji offerings as well.

EDIT: Looks like the Sony NEX-3N is mad cheap for what I get

[flipstah]

http://calgary.kijiji.ca/c-buy-and-sell-cameras-camcorders-Pentax-Lumix-DMC-G3-Micro-4-3-W0QQAdIdZ497926833

Thoughts?

[taemo]

isnt that though a mini dslr?
if you are game, them i agree with ryan with sony, nex5 to nex7 is what brought me to leica lol.
but a 24mm lens will give you 35mm fov and theres tons of legacy lens you can get from olympus, pentax, nikon and leica m mounts.

the nex7 is still being praised by travel photographers, even luminous-landscape

[blitz]

Nex-6 is a great camera too, EVF on it is very nice. If you don't care about EVF, Any of the 3 or 5 series cameras work great and can be had super cheap used too.

A lot of the newer Sony bodies have better built in image correction for rangefinder lenses too, although that doesn't affect you now.

I personally would go with Fuji if you were planning on buying all native lenses, but for legacy glass and low cost of entry, it's hard to beat a NEX-3N @ 399 with the powerzoom pancake.

[kvg]

If you don't care about IS aps-c would probably make more sense if your using primarily legacy glass.

[HiSpec]

Originally posted by blitz
Nex-6 is a great camera too, EVF on it is very nice. If you don't care about EVF, Any of the 3 or 5 series cameras work great and can be had super cheap used too.

A lot of the newer Sony bodies have better built in image correction for rangefinder lenses too, although that doesn't affect you now.

I personally would go with Fuji if you were planning on buying all native lenses, but for legacy glass and low cost of entry, it's hard to beat a NEX-3N @ 399 with the powerzoom pancake.

Have you had any experience with Sony's prime for NEX-3N/6?

[clem24]

Originally posted by ga16i


Not quite, the yellow frame in this picture isn't 4:3 ratio at all. Hell, it doesn't even look 3:2.

Shooting 4:3 is much closer to square and gives you more height in a landscape orientation and more width in a portrait orientation, exactly the same ratio as 645. Really depends what you shoot if 2X crop factor is good or bad. I don't often shoot wide, so a 28mm becoming a normal and a 50mm becoming a portrait lens wasn't a bad thing.

EDIT: oddly enough the outer rectangle marked full frame is actually quite close to 4:3 haha

Uhh dude that's 4/3 thirds format, not 4:3 ratio LOL.


Originally posted by taemo
isnt that though a mini dslr?
if you are game, them i agree with ryan with sony, nex5 to nex7 is what brought me to leica lol.
but a 24mm lens will give you 35mm fov and theres tons of legacy lens you can get from olympus, pentax, nikon and leica m mounts.

the nex7 is still being praised by travel photographers, even luminous-landscape

To me it's all about size. NEX is simply TOO BIG. The 1.5 crop factor means your lenses are bigger. Then add in the fact that NEX lens selection sucks shit. All the pixel peepers will jump into the bigger sensor is better boat, but for me, it's all about size.

The m4/3 form factor is, at the moment, the best of all worlds: small size, excellent image quality, and not just large but STELLAR lens selection (as in lots of actually GOOD lenses, not just a bunch of zooms). There's just no counter-argument to these points.

BTW Flipstah, that G3 was being blown out by panasonic.ca for less than $250 shipped. It was an absolute steal since you were getting the sensor of a G1x with built in EVF.

[EDIT] NVM it was even less than that.. $212 shipped.

http://forums.beyond.ca/st2/camera-gear-deals-and-discounts/showthread.php?s=&threadid=328157&perpage=20&highlight=&pagenumber=19

[ga16i]

Originally posted by clem24


Uhh dude that's 4/3 thirds format, not 4:3 ratio LOL.



4/3 format natively has a 4:3 ratio sensor. Putting legacy glass on a 4/3 or m4/3 body would not result in an image looking like what the yellow rectangle shows. That illustration suggests that images taken with legacy glass for 35mm somehow ends up being quite short and wide when mounted on a 4/3 body.

I never really got the point of those diagrams comparing crop factors. Yes, they can be used to show what happens when you use lenses for 35mm film on crop bodies, but only if you're trying to use a 100mm lens as a 100mm lens on both 35mm sensor and cropped sensors without taking into account the crop factor. If someone was to compare images taken at the same effective focal lengths, the 4/3 image would actually be as wide as the 35mm version, but with added height.

I just didn't think that the illustration accurately portrays what happens when you take pictures with 35mm legacy glass on 4/3 that's all.

[blitz]

Originally posted by clem24
[B]


The m4/3 form factor is, at the moment, the best of all worlds: small size, excellent image quality, and not just large but STELLAR lens selection (as in lots of actually GOOD lenses, not just a bunch of zooms). There's just no counter-argument to these points.

It's the best of all worlds if you don't care about bokeh/background separation at short to medium distances.

I love wide fast lenses (21/1.4, 24/1.4/35mm 1.4), and there is absolutely no way m43 cab every do that well. To get the equivalent of a 24mm 1.4 on FX, it would have to be a 12mm 0.5 or some shit like that.

Some of the Voigtlander 0.95 glass gets close, but their MF lenses and huge in comparison to other m43 lenses.

[kvg]

And soft as shit and dam near useless below f1.4

[flipstah]

DAMN IT! :banghead: Missed the sale.

Technology is so complicated. Fuck.

Which of these have the best HD recording capabilities or since everything is 'HD', it's a wash? :dunno:

[kvg]

The gh3 is the best but the having Olympus in body stabilization makes it like having a steady cam for hand held recording.

[clem24]

Originally posted by ga16i
I never really got the point of those diagrams comparing crop factors. Yes, they can be used to show what happens when you use lenses for 35mm film on crop bodies, but only if you're trying to use a 100mm lens as a 100mm lens on both 35mm sensor and cropped sensors without taking into account the crop factor. If someone was to compare images taken at the same effective focal lengths, the 4/3 image would actually be as wide as the 35mm version, but with added height.

I just didn't think that the illustration accurately portrays what happens when you take pictures with 35mm legacy glass on 4/3 that's all.

What do you mean accurate? To me that's going to pretty damn close to what you get. So I don't see why don't get the point of such a diagram. Fine it won't be 1000% accurate but who cares? It's a damn fine/simple illustration of what happens when FF glass is mounted on crop sensors.


Originally posted by blitz


It's the best of all worlds if you don't care about bokeh/background separation at short to medium distances.

I love wide fast lenses (21/1.4, 24/1.4/35mm 1.4), and there is absolutely no way m43 cab every do that well. To get the equivalent of a 24mm 1.4 on FX, it would have to be a 12mm 0.5 or some shit like that.

Some of the Voigtlander 0.95 glass gets close, but their MF lenses and huge in comparison to other m43 lenses.

Sorry since we were discussing Sony M mount and such, I was only referring to EVIL formats. Yes you can't get the bokeh of DX and FX; you're right. But as far as EVIL formats are concerned, m4/3 is the only one with a huge selection of fast native glass and carries a small form factor.

Also, in my shooting style, I would not prefer the 2mm focus plane of FX at 1.4. To me, I prefer the longer focus plane of m4/3, AND have true f/1.4 brightness. That to me is a huge, huge plus of m4/3. To each his own I guess!

And Flipstah, unless you're a video professional, you do NOT need any of the GH bodies, which are video oriented and carry a huge price premium.

[HiSpec]

So from what I am getting at, m4/3 is the only solution if I want a portable camera with fast prime lenses?

[kvg]

IMO its the best all around compact system currently.

[taemo]

Originally posted by HiSpec
So from what I am getting at, m4/3 is the only solution if I want a portable camera with fast prime lenses?

interchangeable portable camera, yes.
otherwise there's the RX1 and X100s with fixed 35mm f/2 lens

[ga16i]

How portable and fast are we talking about? Does it have to be a pancake?

Nikon 1 has the f1.8 Nikkor 18.5 mm
Sony E Mount has a f1.8 in 35mm and 50mm
Canon EOS-M has the f2.0 22mm pancake
m4/3 has a few fast primes some pancake some not

[kvg]

Available M43 primes

12/2.0
14/2.5
15/8.0(body cap thing)
17/1.8
17/2.8
17.5/0.95
19/2.8
20/1.7
25/1.4
25/0.95
30/2.8
45/1.8
45/2.8 macro
50/0.95 x2
60/2.8macro
75/1.8

I think that's it, not including fish eye lenses:dunno:

[HiSpec]

Originally posted by ga16i
How portable and fast are we talking about? Does it have to be a pancake?

Nikon 1 has the f1.8 Nikkor 18.5 mm
Sony E Mount has a f1.8 in 35mm and 50mm
Canon EOS-M has the f2.0 22mm pancake
m4/3 has a few fast primes some pancake some not

Ideally pancake. The main purpose of this camera is so I can take it anywhere with me on the street instead of my DSLR. I know I am sacrificing a fair bit of flexibility if I don't go for zoom. But with zoom I'll lose a fair bit of low light performance which I believe it is a fair trade off.

[ga16i]

Then yeah m4/3 is probably the way to go. Canon is close with f2.0, but the AF on m4/3 right now just blows it out of the water. The pancakes on Nikon 1 and Sony E Mount are f2.8, not exactly all that fast for a prime.

[HiSpec]

Originally posted by ga16i
Then yeah m4/3 is probably the way to go. Canon is close with f2.0, but the AF on m4/3 right now just blows it out of the water. The pancakes on Nikon 1 and Sony E Mount are f2.8, not exactly all that fast for a prime.

I am also considering RX100M2. I know it is a zoom, but the f1.8 is also quite attractive.

I am so lost at which camera to go with...

[Mitsu3000gt]

The zooms are often stabilized, so as long as you aren't trying to freeze action, it somewhat makes up for the slower apertures.

The Nikon 18.5/1.8 is an exceptional lens, but while fairly compact still, it's not a pancake. The 10/2.8 pancake is excellent as well but 2.8 isn't fast enough for everyone. V1's are so ridiculously cheap right now (under $300 with lens!), so it's hard to go wrong there. Also, even after 2 years, nothing can touch the 1 series' AF capability in the segment.

If you've ever played with a M4/3 or especially a 1 Series camera, the RX100 is going to feel quite sluggish in comparison (it does to me, anyway, although it's way better than a typical P&S).

If I were you, I'd go Panasonic G3/G1x or Nikon 1, depending on what's most important to you. The OMD is great but not as compact.

[blitz]

I just picked up an olympus EP5 with the 17mm 1.8. Man does olympus know how to make a nice camera. So much better than the GX1.

[clem24]

Originally posted by blitz
I just picked up an olympus EP5 with the 17mm 1.8. Man does olympus know how to make a nice camera. So much better than the GX1.

Sweet.. Gonna keep my eyes peeled when you sell it.. :D

[HiSpec]

Originally posted by blitz
I just picked up an olympus EP5 with the 17mm 1.8. Man does olympus know how to make a nice camera. So much better than the GX1.

What's better about the EP5 over the GX1?

[taemo]

Originally posted by blitz
I just picked up an olympus EP5 with the 17mm 1.8. Man does olympus know how to make a nice camera. So much better than the GX1.



Originally posted by clem24


Sweet.. Gonna keep my eyes peeled when you sell it.. :D
damn! me 2nd on line please :rofl:

what happened to the ricoh GR?

[blitz]

I still want a Ricoh GR, but the EP5 + 75 1.8 is going to be my new telephoto setup. Selling my 70-200mm 2.8 covered both body + lens.

The EP5 is a lot quicker in every way over the GX1 (responsiveness, AF, playback etc) and I like the files a lot better. Touch screen in awesome. I honestly can't find many faults with it, and I'm pretty harsh on mirrorless cameras. VF-4 is the nicest EVF I've ever used too, makes the VF-2 on my M look like a pile of shit.

My only complaint so far is it doesn't seem to let you assign a minimun shutter speed to pair with Auto ISO. On my M, I've got it set to 1/125 minimum (motion blur sucks worse than noise), where as the EP5 will pop down to 1/30. Then you're forced to either kick it into manual mode when you're shooting in low light environments.

[D'z Nutz]

Were you looking to get a GR-D or one of those modular systems?

[blitz]

The new GR, the fixed 28mm 2.8 APS-C version.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by HiSpec


What's better about the EP5 over the GX1?

It's basically an OMD in a smaller body, which is the best M4/3 sensor out right now and a very good setup in general. Panasonic has some sensor work to do, but is still making very good overall cameras - can't go wrong there either.

For me, a touchscreen and no PDAF is a deal breaker, but I suspect I'm in the minority on that one. The EP5 is an extremely solid camera still if you only shoot stills.

[clem24]

Originally posted by blitz
The EP5 is a lot quicker in every way over the GX1 (responsiveness, AF, playback etc) and I like the files a lot better. Touch screen in awesome. I honestly can't find many faults with it, and I'm pretty harsh on mirrorless cameras. VF-4 is the nicest EVF I've ever used too, makes the VF-2 on my M look like a pile of shit.

Weird.. At no point do I feel the GX1 is slow or unresponsive. AF is lightning quick. I guess I need to try out the EP5 to find out.

[blitz]

I don't think it's the fact that the GX1 is slow, it's just that the Olympus is unbelievably fast.

[kvg]

Originally posted by clem24


Weird.. At no point do I feel the GX1 is slow or unresponsive. AF is lightning quick. I guess I need to try out the EP5 to find out.



Originally posted by blitz
I don't think it's the fact that the GX1 is slow, it's just that the Olympus is unbelievably fast.


AF a Panasonic lens on my old GX1 is still faster than my OMD and I do love the fact Panasonic has in camera lens correction. The in body IS is awesome, but with the GX7 and the possible Sony FF mirrorless with in body IS I might be selling my OMD even tough it is a amazing camera.