Micro-four-thirds experiences?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by David Taylor, Jun 2, 2014.

  1. David Taylor

    David Taylor Guest

    I recall that someone here has recently either started to make use of,
    or gone significantly over to, Micro-four-thirds. I would be interested
    in hearing any experience, or tips or advice.

    I've recently purchased a Panasonic GX7 with 20 mm f/1.7 and 14-140 mm
    lenses, and I'm pleased with both. I also got the compact Olympus 9-18
    mm wide-angle and, while optically it seems fine, it is a very tight fit
    on the Panasonic camera, and I'm wondering whether that's normal. The
    reduced weight of the outfit is marvellous - and much better than when I
    looked at four-thirds a few years back! My pocket is a lot lighter,
    though, as well! <G>

    I'm sufficiently impressed that I can /almost/ see myself selling the
    APS-C DSLR output (Nikon D5200, 10-24, 16-85, 18-200, 70-300 and 35/2
    lenses), most of which I don't carry round with me.
    David Taylor, Jun 2, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. David Taylor

    Peabody Guest

    David Taylor says...
    I'd like to see that too. I guess what concerns me is just
    the smaller sensor size, and everything that that implies.
    Here's a controversial video and followup that attempts to
    quantify the differences in pictures you get between MFT and
    FF (full-frame), with MFT having a crop factor of 2.

    Basically he says that a picture taken with a MFT camera
    at ISO 100, using a 50 mm lens at f2.8 is the same as a
    picture taken from the same place with a FF camera at ISO
    400, using a 100mm lens at f5.6. The "same" picture means
    same field of view, same depth of field and bokeh, same
    noise level. And of course this assumes comparable sensor
    quality (i.e. - the same generation of sensor technology).

    His big beef with the MFT manufacturers is that they
    advertize a 35-100mm f2.8 lens, for example, as equivalent
    to a FF 70-200 f2.8 lens. And it isn't. It's equivalent to
    a FF 70-200 f5.6 lens, with two additional stops of ISO noise
    thrown in.

    But I have to say, I haven't found anyone who has complaints
    about MFT pictures, except possibly with respect to bokeh.
    But if that's not critical to you, then the reduced size and
    weight would sure be nice. To be fair, I guess the other
    con could be focusing speed, which you would expect to be
    slower with MFT, but I'm not sure that matters this side of
    Peabody, Jun 2, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. David Taylor

    RichA Guest

    Well, according to tests, Olympus m4/3 have a wider dynamic range than any of the APS cameras now, and if about (arbitrary) 40% more noise at high ISOis tolerable and you don't need focusing speed on moving objects like a higher-end APS DSLR with TOP lenses, you will grow to appreciate the weight savings.
    I've heard there were some tight lens issues with the Panasonics. You might try another one, if it's convenient.
    RichA, Jun 3, 2014
  4. David Taylor

    android Guest

    The physics on the ground says that full-frame beats half-frame that
    beats quarter-frame everything else equal.
    I had an Evolt E-300 and did not like that piece of equipment. I did
    have a few OM's back in the day and only switched to Canon because of
    the viewfinders low eye-point and the lightmeter.
    android, Jun 3, 2014
  5. David Taylor

    David Taylor Guest

    I can't stand "forums", sorry, so I won't be visiting. If you have some
    experience to communicate I would like to hear it here.
    David Taylor, Jun 3, 2014
  6. David Taylor

    David Taylor Guest

    Thanks for your comments.

    I compared the high-ISO images on DPReview, and the GX7 had less noise
    than the D5300 (one step in advance of my existing D5200). I don't use
    RAW. For size, cost and weight reasons, I've not been a "TOP" lens
    user, so that's no problem.

    Testing another lens isn't a possibility, as we have no photo dealers
    left in town.
    David Taylor, Jun 3, 2014
  7. David Taylor

    David Taylor Guest

    On 03/06/2014 08:05, android wrote:
    Yes, I know about the physics, but with the improvements in sensors it
    does mean that today's smaller sensors have a chance against yesterday's
    larger sensors. Over time, everything else is not equal! <G>

    I would hope that in the 8 years between the E-300 and the GX7 there
    have been significant improvements. Certainly, the viewfinder is
    excellent, and metering has been at least reasonable, and obviously I'm
    still learning how to use the camera for best results.
    David Taylor, Jun 3, 2014
  8. David Taylor

    David Taylor Guest

    Noted on your sensor and image size comments.

    Bokeh won't be as good, true, but I've tried one or two tests using
    out-of-focus backgrounds and there is still good subject isolation.
    Moving subjects isn't something I've yet tried (and actually not
    something I regularly take in any case), but you have a good point about
    seeing how well it performs.
    David Taylor, Jun 3, 2014
  9. David Taylor

    android Guest

    I meant: Back in the film camera days...
    You have bought your camera and I didn't wanna rain on your parade and
    that's why I directed my answer to Rich,
    However, the technological improvements made in sensors are of course
    available for sensors of all sizes. I've not heard of a breakthrough
    patent that's exclusively available to Panasonic.

    Bigger sensor gives you better DOF control and decent manual focus
    ability too.

    Sensor wise: Bigger is better.
    android, Jun 3, 2014
  10. David Taylor

    David Taylor Guest

    On 03/06/2014 08:44, android wrote:
    I'm quite happy for comments - I'm not seeking an excuse to send the
    camera back, but I do want comments on whether there is something in
    particular I should be looking for.

    Unfortunately, bigger sensors (which I agree are "better") carry the
    very significant penalty of larger cameras, heavier cameras, and larger,
    heavier and perhaps more expensive lenses. I did once use a Nikon D800
    with 28-300 mm lens, roughly the full-frame equivalent of my existing
    DSLR output. It was /way/ too heavy, let alone too bulky.

    I am coming to the conclusion that today's micro-four-thirds is at least
    as good as quite recent APS-C DSLRs and, with the image magnification,
    possibly /more/ accurate manual focus than a DSLR in TTL mode (no more
    split-prism or micro-focus screens fitted by default).

    The DoF issue I will need to work round a little, but it's not going to
    be a lot different to an APS_C DSLR.

    Thanks for your input!
    David Taylor, Jun 3, 2014
  11. David Taylor

    android Guest

    You obviously want confirmation. You won't get that from me. There are
    better cameras out there...
    android, Jun 3, 2014
  12. David Taylor

    Sandman Guest

    Only if you also want fast lenses. I've been using my Sony A7 hanging
    around my neck when crawling through tunnels with my son and their
    classmates in a kind of competitive arena och cells and challenges. It had
    the 35mm lens
    Granted, the A7 is an expensive camera, but it's super small, full frame
    sensor and more than capable in pretty much every light condition. Most
    zoom lenses for APS/FF are big:ish, but the Sony 28-70 isn't all that big,
    really. And the combination certainly isn't heavy.
    Sandman, Jun 3, 2014
  13. David Taylor

    J. Clarke Guest

    The question, though, is not "are there better cameras", the question is
    "how good is good enough".
    J. Clarke, Jun 3, 2014
  14. David Taylor

    android Guest

    That's not how a photographer would put it but a salesman. I would, in
    that pricerange consider a Sony A6000 or a Fuji EX or something. Both
    with sensors twice the size and still compact and reasonably priced. The
    M produces good files but have a very slow AF.
    android, Jun 3, 2014
  15. David Taylor

    David Taylor Guest

    "How good is good enough" is certainly my approach, coming from a more
    engineering background. Thanks for the suggestions of other APS-C
    sensor cameras, but it's that size of lens (etc.) I'm trying to get away
    from. Perhaps if Nikon had done a mirrorless APS-C camera I would have
    looked at it, but not now.

    Everyone's comments are appreciated.
    David Taylor, Jun 3, 2014
  16. David Taylor

    David Taylor Guest

    On 03/06/2014 12:47, Sandman wrote:
    OK, I would have been using the Nikon 35/1.8 for that.
    The trouble is I have been spoilt with 10:1 zooms! Most of the time I
    find no need to change lenses, so a 10:1 zoom was the minimum
    requirement when considering a move to MFT. The Panasonic 14-140 is
    well under half the weight of the Nikon 18-200, [265g vs. 680g] and for
    me that's a major improvement. More athletic types would perhaps not
    notice! <G>
    David Taylor, Jun 3, 2014
  17. David Taylor

    android Guest

    The engineer and salesman both has consider what they can sell and what
    price they can get...

    Thanks for the suggestions of other APS-C
    You're obviously blindfolded in love... ;-P
    android, Jun 3, 2014
  18. David Taylor

    Sandman Guest

    The smallest body you can put that on is the D3200, and the lens itself is
    at least 1/3 bigger than the Sony lens, so you'd end up with an anchor
    around your neck. The A7+35mm is world's apart, AND full frame - as opposed
    to the 35/1.8
    Well, I don't use zoom's all that much. I like prime's. Problem with
    superzooms are that they're way too slow.
    Well, like I said, the Sony 24-70 weighs only 295g. And it's the same
    Sandman, Jun 3, 2014
  19. David Taylor

    Joe Makowiec Guest

    The engineer has to consider how to produce what the salesperson
    overpromised and underbid.
    Joe Makowiec, Jun 3, 2014
  20. David Taylor

    android Guest

    The OP wants a 10x zoom... I don't think that he can be bothered with
    the qualities of your Zeiss... ;-P
    android, Jun 3, 2014
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.