Panasonic 4K Cameras at CES.
Fast test of Pana 12-32 vs Oly 9-18 on both E-P5 and GM1 at Paleonature.
Panasonic’s first-person 4K camera debuts at CES, set for launch in late 2014 (Engadget).
Review: Olympus Stylus 1 Compact Premium Bridge (Digitalversus).
Panasonic GM1 review at Photoreview.
Olympus STYLUS 1 Review by Robin Wong.
The world’s first smooth focus controller released- V-Control Evolution (Aputure).
First Impressions: Panasonic 42.5mm f1.2 (ThePhoBlographer)
Can a m4/3 mirrorless system be a professional system? A personal view (Soundimagesplus).
More images of the new Kodak S-1 MFT camera at DC.watch.
84 Responses
Some comments;
“Can a m4/3 mirrorless system be a professional system?” – Ok, this guy must obviously be putting out some crazy high rez stuff. I’m not sure why he feels only base ISO is enough, but maybe it becomes a problem if he needs to use slow apertures for more DoF? For me, a lens like the PanaLeica 25 1.4 makes up a lot of the gap between m43 and full frame in terms of low light capability, but maybe that’s just me. In any case, I think in 2 more years, the consensus will be even more so than today that m43 is getting to the point where it is usable for a lot of pro’s.
Panasonic 42.5mm f1.2 (ThePhoBlographer) – Is it just me or are the cameras/lenses getting to the point where they are almost too sharp? I started feeling bad for the models.
Even though I would never return to APS-C DSLR (let alone FF) and I really like my mft cameras, I can understand why someone making a living on sports photography will prefer FF. I usually also avoid ISO >800 with mft and if you are shooting a Basketball game it can be pretty dark and you need a tele with long focal length and higher minimal apertures and therefore you will often need ISO >800.
On the other hand, mosts of the professional sports photographers post their pictures not in high-gloss magazines but in newspapers with a ‘suboptimal’ image quality and no one cares.
This reminds me of some pictures posted on another blog using the new FF Sony cameras.
Yeah, if I was a model in either of these situations I would sue. Atrocious work and really just underscores the fact that those that can, do, the rest blog……
Then I saw the price… HOLY CRAP.
I know, pretty cheap, right?
It’s worth the price (and in Germany the price is really high). Unfortunately, they do not deliver Robin along with the camera. 😉
Robin Wong brings up something that a lot of the trolls around here fail to grasp: for creating a shallow depth of field, focal length and distance to subject are just as important as sensor size. That, and the f-number doubling when comparing MFT to FF only applies to DoF. From an exposure perspective, there’s no ‘equivalent’ f-number.
(Sometimes you read a post here saying something like “A 25mm f1.8 MFT lens is equivalent to a 50mm f3.6 FF lens!” But the MFT lens in that ‘example’ is still exposing the sensor like an f1.8 lens. So for it to actually be equivalent, you would have to raise that FF’s ISO sensitivity. And wave goodbye to its image quality advantage.)
when people talk about this kind of equivalency and if they know what they are talking about they are talking about dof not exposure.
Many of us care (almost) only about light gathering capability, not DoF. It has plenty of DoF for most purposes, at least if you are a decent photographer.
Right, some people (mostly amateurs trying to look ‘artsy’) act like shallow DoF is the only reason to shoot wide open. Meanwhile, others (like me) are more interested in shooting wide open in low light or situations where a short exposure is necessary.
+++++++++
EXACTLY! Low or available light, handheld, lower ISOs, higher shutter speeds.
DoF is an afterthought most of the time.
Again, another comment with this negative undertone about people who care about shallow dof.
No, a negative response to people who think only in terms of DOF. Mainly because they lack the creative vision to do anything other than DOF subject isolation.
thats what i eman, how do you know if they ONLY think in shallow dof, i think you mix them up with people who post pics of closeups with shallow dof…I am sure you never complain about pics with superwide dof if the were thrown in your face all the time.
Ulli, seems more like a response to people consistently complaining how ‘full frame’ can get them the shallow dof that m4/3 can’t.
‘Many of us care (almost) only about light gathering capability…’
So you are basically shooting at large aperture/unnecessarily shallow DOF just to prevent some noise in your images? Now I know where all those thin-dof/bad lighting images on Flickr come from. That’s what I call creative vision.
Hmm…someone being a bit defensive I see. Seeing you have not seen my work, and I don’t get offended by nobodies on the web, please continue to rant about whatever you want.
It is a bit sad that you clearly don’t understand there are many different situations one takes pictures, and the reasons for them vary greatly. Good Luck with whatever it is you are doing.
‘Knowing what they are talking about’ is asking a lot of the trolls that hang around this site. 😉
Besides, I think it’s best to note that the equivalency only applies to DoF anyway, as there could be some beginners reading the post who might otherwise misunderstand it.
Absolutely right, they all forget to bring exposure into the game (leading to crop^2 times higher ISO).
I recently found an interesting article http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/ff.html.
These guys should read that. Another nice one: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence.
Hahha I’m so tired of equivalence conversations. A 1.4 lens is a 1.4 lens is a 1.4 lens. The ONLY thing that “changes” is the depth of field. And I argue even DOF doesn’t change, the DOF is different because your distance to the subject has to change to compose the same shot as with FF.
Of course, people alway multiply the f-stop by the crop-factor, meaning Dof, but missing the original definition of a DIMENSIONLESS number. As to your claim
http://toothwalker.org/optics/dofderivation.html#eq13
formula (9) shows, that Dof depends on subject distance, focal length and pixel size (more exact circle of confusion) amongst others. Rewriting it it includes the image magnification factor. So changing the focal length changes DoF. Using the same lens changes image magnification and therefore DoF.
If the image size is the same, say that of a “head shot”, the depth of field is essentially the same using a wide angle lens to a telephoto.
Sorry but focal length does not affect depth of field in any noticeable way. I find it odd that even Robin Wong hasn’t read up on this and promotes the Stylus 1, as if it could achieve thin depth of field at it’s longer tele-photo end. An unfortunately common misconception. Maybe folks really just ought to buy compacts like the Stylus 1, since they can’t see the difference anyway. Maybe if Robin had posted proper sized samples instead of those tiny ones, who knows.
The reality is all MOST people need is a bridge camera like the Stylus. They buy dSLRs because they get the shot. That’s the only reason most people step up from point and shoots; autofocus and shutter lag are much better on dSLRs. If they came out with a compact camera that could capture fast moving subjects, there would only be pros and enthusiasts left buying ILCs. The vast majority do not buy ILCs for image quality, dynamic range, DOF, etc.
It does: the formula is number (9) here
http://toothwalker.org/optics/dofderivation.html#eq13.
Um, yes, focal length most certainly does affect depth of field. For a given aperture and distance to subject, a longer focal length gives shallower DoF.
Here’s a calculator, if you’d like to play around a bit:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dof-calculator.htm
HF and Toe, I must insist you read the full article. Here is the link: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm
The chapter titled “CLARIFICATION: FOCAL LENGTH AND DEPTH OF FIELD” is especially worth your time. If not still convinced, then I hope you will independently search “focal length and depth of field” on google, and go a bit more in depth on the subject.
I know your linked resource very well, since I often look up things there. However, they have some assumptions. In the optical literature thou find equations for the DOF, and here you can do some simple mathematical analysis to show that DoF depends on v/f on the one side (ratio of object distance v to focal length f, occurring in various locations) and the focal length in the nominator. The latter f can be eliminated using the f-stop. So your source assumes two things: the f-stop is the same (makes sense) and f and v go inversely to each other. This latter assumption is the problem; I often deal with formulas like that during my work and you can’t just fix the ratio and pretend everything is therefore independent of focal length. I can argue exactly in the opposite manner: there is no dependency on object distance, since I can always change the focal length such that v/f stays constant. Only for certain distance (macro work) the focal length drops completely out of the formula. If there is a different derivation of the DoF-formula I would be glad for a link to that resource.
I meant f and v need to be proportional (this is what your link shows, increase f by a factor of two, then increase your object distance as well).
“Robin Wong brings up something that a lot of the trolls around here fail to grasp: for creating a shallow depth of field, focal length and distance to subject are just as important as sensor size.”
The problem with that is in many situations you cannot get good results by getting closer or using a longer lens. Head and shoulder portraits are a good example. If you get too close the face looks distorted and unattractive. If you stand back and use a longer lens they look flat. There is a reason 85-90mm lenses became the standard for this type of picture when using a 35mm camera, other focal lengths do not work as well.
I do not take a lot of this sort of picture but when I do I use the 45mm f1.8. There are times when having the very shallow DOF a 85mm f1.8 lens on a FF camera could provide would be nice. But not as nice as having a much lighter and more portable system. Micro 4/3 is for those of us that want small and light. That is more important than shallow DOF for me but I am not going to waste time denying there are times when very shallow DOF is a useful tool and a FF camera is better at it than a m43 camera. The 45mm f1.8 is good enough for me and much smaller and lighter than a FF 85.
Very true, there’s practical considerations going both ways. Although personally I think that for portraits, perspective changes (compression) aren’t as big of a deal as some make it out to be, as long as you’re not trying to use a 14mm or something.
close portaits with 25 mm already gives considerable distortain of the facial characteristics, but most of the time its not really a problem. 14mm portaits can have a nice impact depending if you incluse it on purpose.
The only reason for denying pro quality to m4/3 is the lack of Mpx. You must understand that the bad note comes from a v. conventional landscapist which was selling D800 type of stuff to Stocks, and is now trying to peddle Sony A stuff, with warts and all.
So I would say that his judgment is hardly not biaised. He even took a grudge against Tuck and other bloggers for choosing the E-M1 as camera of the year.
Best wishes for 2014. Perhaps the Sony A will evolve in a decent camera, if Oly helps 🙂
Meanwhile don’t forget your tripod, and your WA corrector, two things m4/3 can do without.
I understand his points. And many of his pictures on the google+ blog with the sigma 35mm/1.4 are great.
But I don’t like the generalisation. There are different jobs out there requiring different gear. For landscape shots on huge prints
FF has an advantage. For many other things not so much. I like http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog more in this respect, because he is more balanced in his statements. For him FF/A7r is required as a professional landscape photograph. But he admires the OMD and especially the 12-40 (read his review) so much, that he would go to m43 as soon as newer m43 sensor catch up in performance to current FF cameras (regarding dynamic rang, higher clean ISO…). Ming Thein investigated too, whether m43 could replace his FF stuff. But he is shooting medium format and Nikon D800 now mostly for premium stuff.
I always laugh when people say, “I’ll use m43 when it catches up to FF.”. The funny thing is, it has caught up! It’s just that it has caught up to earlier generations. M43 will always lag current FF, but that’s not a bad thing, it just is what it is. It will constantly improve, but FF as it advances will always be “better” if you like to pixel peep. And as we all know, at current resolutions and improvements with noise, etc, pixel peeping has nothing to do with photography anymore.
In fact he changes his opinion, as soon as he changes his camera, which is many times a year.
The last I heard was that m4/3 was perfectly OK because he uprezzed his pictures anyway.
Then after boasting that he makes one million a year (with Stocks?) he says that everything is shit after the A7r and exhibits an old voigtlander 20mm’s samples as proof . After manipulating the dropoff in PP and the magenta shift I suppose.
Can you believe it?
And this is the person who took a fight with K. Tuck and Ming Thein because they dared not to take a shine with the A7?
LOL
Yeah, I kind of question anybody who beams over the A7. I do understand the emotion and excitement. The system certainly has promise, and I commend Sony for “going for it”, but the way the camera handles is awful. It really does feel rushed to market.
Steve Jobs said, Design is not just what it looks and feels like. Design is how it works. The E-M1 is much more refined. There are many people who RELUCTANLTY picked it over the A7 as camera of the year. Olympus should be very proud.
I also think that the A7 is not as much of a threat to m43 as it is to FF Canon and Nikon. Most who buy FF already have photography knowledge and are looking for a specific experience. However, there is increasingly less and less reason why someone would pick APS-C over m43, and more reason to choose the size advantage of m43.
The lady said “they will not even confirm to me that it is a microfourthirds mount but panasonic is very commited to the m43 system”.
It MAY be possible that Panasonic builds a APS system together with Leica ( perhaps compatible with m43 ) and this 4k camera is the first Panasonic camera with APS, which will be rebranded by Leica ( then less video centered ) ?
Just thinking.
Fast test of Pana 12-32 vs Oly 9-18 on both E-P5 and GM1 at Paleonature, this a bleeding joke! Insult my intelligence! What did the test show? Nothing!!
@soundimageplus
The photographers I employ all use DSLRs and their work tortures me because of the amount of post processing I have to unlike with my Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds it is much easier to get the image right in camera (exposure, white balance, framing etc), so less post processing.
Re sharpening:
this should be done just before final output for the individual clients needs… what looks beautifully sharp on a computer monitor looks stupid and crispy in print, you can’t unsharpen photos.
You employ photographers who deliver suboptimal photos because their equipment is not up to the task? So why do you not employ photographers who have the skills to use their equipment, or why do you not provide them with suitable equipment if the cameras are to be blamed? And why has m43 by default better exposure and white balance than a DSLR? Why is framing with a m43 camera easier than with a DSLR? Sure, a m43 system with good viewfinder and flip screen like the EM-1 may make framing easier than a D3000, but you can claim the opposite if you select other models (like 70D vs GF1), so I am not sure how this would be related to the system overall… The one thing we do agree on is that sharpening has to meet the needs inc. the output medium.
I was skeptical about whether the Kodak branded camera really had a 4/3 size sensor but looking at the pictures it appears that it does. I do not have any interest in the actual camera but it is nice to see that there appears to be a 3 sensor manufacturer offering a m4/3 sensor. The Kodak sensor is BSI so it is not one of the current sensors from Sony or Panasonic although it is possible it is a new sensor from Sony.
Am surprised not to see some comments from the experts regarding the review of the GM1 and its surprising 12-32 lens with very good resolution as high as 2600 lines in RAW at the normal end wide open and not too shabby at the wa end either but both a little lower on the edges. You will have to go to a much larger higher MP sensor camera to get this high resolution out of a kit zoom lens. They also comment that in low light good pictures out of this camera/lens combo with little noise right up to ISO 6400 so no wonder this camera with up to -4EV auto focus and very fast good for street photography and low light situations in spite of relatively slow lens speed. What do you think?
I think the gm1 looks like a brilliant camera for street photography! I am really tempted to get one as my main family-pics body. Or I might hold out for the gm2, hoping it comes with a control dial in place of the focus selection switch (which I would never use).
My tablet keeps crashing whenever I try and read the 12-35mm vs 9-18mm review – how did the new lens fare in that comparison?
Photoreview gives one of the first full test reviews of the GM1 with its 12-32 lens with actual resolution, etc tests which were very good. One odd comment they made which was not appropriate was that best resolutions were obtained when stopping the lens down a stop or two when in fact at 25 and 62mm the lens is at its highest resolution by far wide open and only marginally lower at wa end wide open. Photoreviews only negative comment was in regards to the high price of GM1 in Australia, but still gave it their Editors Choice Award.
Wow, Sound Image Plus got some fanboys Upset!
But, I agree with him %100.
There is a compromise with M43 and everybody knows it. It’s an ugly word to us owners:
Image Quality.
M43 sucks at night and dark photos. M43 High ISO is not high. Fast moving, Sucks.
It has it’s pluses, smaller, lighter, I love EVF’s way more than a mirror, touch screen, etc, But when it comes down to image quality and DoF, it’s nowhere close to my FF camera.
He’s right, people need to deal with it.
After work, I would go street shooting, and no matter what, my Canon 6D, with the 40mm f2.8, kills any M43 camera I own with either the 20mm f1.7 or the P/L 25mm f1.4… Kills it. It’s not even close. After looking at my 6D pics, everything else looks flat with my M43 gear… It looks good, but doesn’t have that nice DoF that my canon delivers.
The 43 sensor is limited. It just is.
You seem to hate M43 a lot. 99% of your comments are about how bad the system is. What’s the purpose of that? Are trying to prove something? With this attitude you kind of disrespect a lot of people that like the system and make money with it. My case for example. I’m video guy and photo enthusiast that dove into the system and that changed my life. Now I can shoot both stills and high quality video (bmpcc/gh3/gx7). I can have up to 12 native lenses and share them with all my cameras. And I can assure, the photos I take with my m43 cameras are stunning!!! Everybody loves them, at least the IQ. I’m lucky that I can have the Nokton trio for my company and borrow them sometimes, so all this DOF talk at for me is BS. I can shoot f0.95 with the 42.5 on my GX7 plenty of extremely defocused areas. Plenty!! The same with the 25 or the 17.5, which gives me a real FF isolation. Not talking about the Pana zoom triplet. I don’t believe you when you say that the 6D+40mm combo kills the GX7+20. Some side-by-side examples would help us to see that. But one thing I can say: a lot here would be much happier if you ended up selling all your m43 gear and go for fuji. Fujirumors is a nice place to be. But I know how stubborn you are, so prob not gonna happen….
You’re upset… I know this.
My point is, I USE M43, there is a reason for it. I can have it with me every day, on the daily commute, no problems whatsoever.
If you feel disrespected, BE upset, that’s not my intentions. You may tire of me, but I’m just as tired of all this “PRO” talk. Most “Pros” who use M43 use it for Hybrid Photography/Video. As many people who claim they use M43 professionally, DSLR DWARFS that number.
M43 is mostly an enthusiast camera. It’s the camera that a “Pro” carries with him when he/she is not working. If you shoot Street Photography and get paid for it, cool. I hope to get there one day, I’ve done fashion shoots with my M43 camera, Product shots, But I’m not gonna sit here and type fud about M43 being all I ever need, or it’s the best. It’s Not, FAR from it.
M43 is losing market share as we type. the head start they had is dwindling. It’s getting TOO EXPENSIVE for a sensor That isn’t better than a Fuji sensor and not even close to FF ones.
Case in point:
-You said it yourself, you shoot Video and stills… Lumix I bet. Olympus video is lacking behind, no “Pro” would shoot video with any Olympus camera.
-You mention expensive Nokton glass, that you yourself don’t even own. There’s a 40mm Nokton for Canon that someday I may purchase. It’s $500.00, affordable. M43 Nokton glass is Expensive, and no auto focus. For you to achieve anything close to my 6D/40mmf2.8 combo, you have to Spend money for glass, and it still won’t be better.
“And I can assure, the photos I take with my m43 cameras are stunning!!!”
Again, you’re taking it personal. I’m sure your photos are good, My M43 photos are good too, in my opinion. BUT I have both, and I can Clearly SEE the difference in Quality!
My reasoning behind getting a Fuji X camera is just that, Image Quality and Cost of that Quality.
-E-M1 is over a grand, that’s a joke that isn’t even funny.
-The new P/L glass, as good as it claims to be, is a Joke as well.
-The E-P5 faded away, simply because of it’s price! It did not Sell.
TOO MANY photogs complain about M43’s pricing. It’s ridiculous for what they’re charging.
Taken from Sound Image Plus:
“I don’t think it’s now a value for money system for me. Some of the lenses like this 42.5mm and cameras like the E-M1 have a pretty high price per pixel ratio. Too high, as far as I’m concerned. And the argument that you don’t need high MP counts is only ever put forward by those who don’t have them!! And it doesn’t matter what we ‘need’ (as if others could tell us that) it’s what we want that counts.”
Truth Hurts.
By the way, I have Both a GX7 (selling it) and the 6D and yeah, the 6D comes out on top. And I don’t need to show you a side by side comparison, Go on Flickr to any Canon 6D group and see for yourself!
You like to be ironic, I’m not upset in any sense, maybe with your atittude sometimes. The point is, I am very happy and satisfied with m43. Very. It’s my system of choice for the years to come I’m quite sure. And I’ll never buy a DSLR, cause I don’t see a single reason to buy one. Maybe for your taste it’s a whole different story. As I understand, since the sensor is smaller, if you put a great glass in front of it you will see an exceptional result, very close to FF or APS-C with an average lens, and this come with a price – it’s a young system, still to be established. That’s my opinion based on what I see everywhere. By the way, the Nokton lenses are mine, since the (small) company is mine, I bought them myself. I want to have the versatility of a small camera with small and fast glasses and when I want, I can play with a super lens and so with manual focus which I love, no matter the price of the lens, cause an FF system is also very expensive. The other day I saw some pictures I guy took in NY with an EM1 and a 14-54 4/3 lens and wow… I was shocked by the image quality. Not a fanboy here, just telling what I saw. I research on the web constantly and I’m yet to see a side-by-side where an FF kills a recent m43 camera with a good glass. The comparisons I saw just proves that IQ is on par, at least for ‘screen usage’. Pixel-peepers on extreme conditions may think different. Really I do not see all that difference in IQ between the formats. Of course if you put a high quality glass on an FF sensor (a la RX1) you will get a leap, but with average lenses, mythic L glass and others, the difference is minimum. Well, prove me wrong with examples, please. I want to see them…!
So you get to shoot only after work? Damn 9-5 jobs! 😛
http://soundimageplus.blogspot.be/2014/01/are-panasonic-and-olympus-pricing.html
THIS.
I’ve been thinking like this for a while now, which is why the G6 just be my last M43 camera.
I’m going Fuji.
The G6 has the form factor and features that I use. I won’t be able to get a swivel screen and touchscreen from Fuji.
My perspective on Depth of field with M4/3 sensor.
Micro 4/3 solves an issue with full frame sensors and typically delivers a better picture when portrait type photos are considered.
This 4.2.5 mm lens when used to take a “head shot” at 1.2 should have a depth of field of about 4 cm. Nose and Eyes will be sharp. Rest “fuzzy”. very nice. A professional type of photo.
A full frame 1.2 will have a depth of field of about 2 cm. Tip o nose out of focus if Eyes are. Not so nice, not as professional.
Back when I used full frame a lot I was always “wasting” glass by adjusting the f stop just to make sure the face, or what every, was was sharp.
This lens, to me, proves that m4/3 is becoming an equal to full frame for professional use, and under certain situations is superior.
THIS.
I think the word perceive is key here. So many people think that depth of field changes. It actually does not. A 42.5 1.2 lens on a full frame is EXACTLY the same as a 42.5 1.2 on an m43. What needs to change to get the same field of view is the distance to subject. If you put a full frame right next to an m43 camera and they both have the same focal length and aperture, then crop the full frame photo to march the m43, they will be IDENTICAL. There are other characteristics of a particular lens that could create slight differences, but that’s a much longer conversation.
If you think of it that way, you are right in that you can achieve a similar DoF, since you change object size and and angle of view by cropping the image. But this is optically equivalent to changing the focal length, since the picture is taken from the same distance but you use a smaller angle of view.
THIS.
Its a crop followed by more magnification.
Oh, but you ignore that Mr.ALLCAPS declared himself a street shooter, with a FF35 nonetheless.
So I ask you Mr.ALLCAPS show 43rumors your street shooting, so we can judge – or be gone, as a charlatan.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28543414@N08/
Here you go… Bomb away.
I take opinions good or bad, I’ve got nothing to hide.
Just Ignore the graphics, they’re just there because i needed to add them to other blogs, just never got around to removing them. It’s a mess, I know.
You have a point, although you are a bit offensive in your opinions. Nevertheless there are some nice pictures of yours. I think it shouldn’t be this or that system is better. It always should be which is the system you get the most of and which fits your shooting style. If it’s high ISO, a 6D is a great option. I’m going for both systems since they complement each other nicely. FF for primes (28,50,85), the system is portable then and allows playing with DoF. But long telezooms on FF? No way, much too expensive and heavy/bulky.
m43 is much better for me here. The 12-40 and 35-100 are great, much smaller. Going to the extremes on every sensor gives you extreme solutions (heavy,expensive). Look at the new 42.5 Nokton at 1500Euros. Very nice lens, certainly nice quality. But this is to give autofocus and shallow DoF to m43, a system not made for this, making it too expensive for me. I originally wanted this lens, but now my
interest is more in adding a A7 or 6D. For high ISO a 6D is certainly one of the best options right now, you’re right in that (I don’t like that it’s difficult to use with one hand since there is only one wheel; shadow recovery is an other thing
which isn’t that good compared to Sony sensors). On the other hand, in two years the m43 sensor should equal nowadays FF seniors. Then we need to judge the purpose of all systems again. For ME m43 is great and gives me what I mostly need AT THE MOMENT, let’s see what the future gives us.
Thanks for your comment on some of my pics, you have a whole lot of points I agree with, All I’m saying is here, there is a lot of fanboys that think M43 is “Holier than Thou” and it’s not.
Don’t get me wrong, M43 has some features that I value way more than my 6D. I love EVFs. I love seeing all my info in it, I love that I can keep my eye on it and adjust, view, move focus without moving from the eycup. I WISH my 6D had a flip out screen. BUT I love the size of the 6D, it’s not that big, it’s still heavy, and I refuse to buy a zoom lens for that reason.
So once again, there is compromises, but it is what it is, not what fanboys “Think” it is.
And if I come off as offensive at times, blame the fanboyism and the B.S. propaganda.
Ok, so you technically manage to take good pictures with your m43 gear i see (from your exif info). Some of them even have good composition and convey emotion in a good way.
I am still confused why you go about criticizing m43 the way you do. I don’t have an issue with the fact that m43 is not the best alternative for all situations, but you have tone that comes off as very offensive. So in essence, some of the stuff you say makes sense, but it is wrapped up in coarse & insulting language. I suspect you don’t know better, but if you do want to get some decent responses on the forum, I suggest you TRY to figure out better ways of saying things. I’ll pick an example, and this is not even one of the worst things you have spewed out lately:
“M43 sucks at night and dark photos. M43 High ISO is not high. Fast moving, Sucks.”
You could simply have said; “My FF gear is better in low-light situations, as I find the high ISO performance to be much better”, or something to that effect.
My 2 cents.
Nice photos, yet I don’t see anything here that cannot be achieved with m43. Nothing that would require that “holy grail” of razor thin DOF that only full frame can offer. (Well, considering your distance to subject is restricted)
The high ISO argument is growing old with me. Do these cameras need to achieve clean images at 1,638,400 ISO to get respect? I can’t imagine what people did just a few years ago, and buying full frame wasn’t one of the solutions for most, given cost. And, oh my, how did we ever survive with Kodachrome 400?
Pixel to price ratio? LOLOL. I guess the megapixel race isn’t over. Then again that 40 mp cell phone camera is looking like a real bargain all of a sudden. I wonder what will happen when pixel densities reach the same level as m43. We’re not far. There ARE drawbacks to this on the larger sensors.
Focus tracking definitely needs improving, but it won’t be long until that is a thing of the past.
The E-P5 was dead in the water because it didn’t have a viewfinder, and was overpriced as a result. I still cringe that Olympus was that stupid.
The E-M1 is not cheap, but is not overpriced. There is no other camera built like and performs like that camera in that price range. You have to pay up quite a bit before you find a camera that does. There IS more to it than just the sensor.
I guess the reason people get upset when people bash m43 is because it is so absolute. The critics in my opinion are overly harsh, and i really don’t understand it. There were never arguments like this with APS-C, and I argue there are no clear advantages over m43. I would say, the size advantage of m43 is a huge advantage over APS-C. All other things are about the same.
And finally, there are advantages AND disadvantages to full frame. However, the image quality gap is closing quickly, and for all intents and purposes that gap is almost non-existent in a lot of shooting situations. Exposure, composition and an interesting subject trump everything.
Actually, check the exif info on the photos and you will see some of the sharper ones are indeed shot with m43 gear.
In general I think we are in agreement – each system has advantages and disadvantages, and they are in many ways so obvious I get tired of repeating them all over again. However, there is on point on which I disagree: “I can’t imagine what people did just a few years ago”. Using the same argument you could say that autofocus, metering, image stabilisation, weather sealing etc. are not needed as people did without them before. The simple fact is that for some people clean ISO 102.400 would be useful. Many of us do not need a D4 sensor but if you shoot at high ISO full frame certainly has advantages.
Anyway, special use cases aside we are lucky that pretty much all camera systems are now “good” enough, even some compact cameras and, increasingly, mobile phones.
Yes, I agree. ALL of these advancements are good. My point was that for all intents and purposes, full frame will always have an edge over m43 as everything advances. However, I ask, at what point does m43 have to get to where people will stop bashing it liks it’s so awful in comparison. I bet in 10 years people will be saying the same stupid things, and an m43 sensor would crush any full frame now. There’s a point where photographs just aren’t that much better, if at all. EXCEPT when you zoom in at the pixel level.
I have seen stunning iPhone pictures. NOBODY says, ehh it’s a little flat, and the dynamic range could be better, and there’s smudging when I zoom in…. Blah blah blah blah blah. If you are making those complaints over and over with the larger sensor cameras then I argue you’re just taking crappy photographs. There may be some situations where you really just need full frame, but I argue the reasons are not as numerous as people exclaim them to be.
fair you show them! …I liked the staring guy
Well, although we certainly don’t share the same streets, I quite like them.
However they certainly don’t justify your obsession with FF35, rather the opposite. m4/3 is perfect if you want the ‘in your face’, close combat aesthetics. It gets you closer and it has IBIS plus all the resolution you need.
In case of soundimage the motivation would rather be to extract all the detail from a landscape. So again horses each deserves his own tool.
Now, if one has a look at the EXIF, none is made with a FF35, all with phones or even m4/3. So are you pulling my leg? Are they even yours?
“Now, if one has a look at the EXIF, none is made with a FF35, all with phones or even m4/3. So are you pulling my leg? Are they even yours?”
First of all, the latest pics were taken with the 6D…DID YOU CHECK THE EXIF DATA? I bet you didn’t, you’re just being Ignorant as usual…
As for my pics, are they mine? HAHAHA! you’re Pathetic. What, you want my Name and Address too??
See..? I show and prove, and you still stoop to low levels of trying to disrespect. My point has been proven, I don’t need to prove myself to you. You tried to call me out and I responded. How do you feel now?
So you use a 6D and troll the 43 forum and delude yourself into thinking you are using a better camera just because it is FF? Let us take a look at the features and test results. The EM1, e.g., has better dynamic range, faster AF, 9.9 frames vs. 4.4 fps, better color accuracy, better EVF than 6D’s OVF, and with the right lens 1 stop faster it can match 6D’ high ISO noise performance as well. Compare the test results at Imaging Resource for both.
Hahaha!!
He we go… Better color? I prefer Canon color… Fuji as well over Olympus, easily.
ISO? Hahaha I can’t believe you went there.
DR? Dunno about that, but if so, ok.
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-6D-vs-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1
At the end of the day, I’m more concerned with IQ and more shallow DoF. The 6D has that over the E-M1 Easily.
-Image Quality
-Better DoF, easily
-Better ISO performance
-Better low light performance
Simple.
snapsort?? really?? now I can see your standards…. lol…
Don’t see any reason to consider what some unknown site says when test results are available. To reiterate about image quality, go back and read what I said about shooting wider with the EM1.
LOL yeah, not sure I would use Snapsort as my resource. However, even these numbers in no way crush the E-M1. I’ll say it again, people get upset when there is the absolute proclamation that full frame is better period, when that just isn’t the case. I’ll even add, considering how much more you have to pay for the 6D, is it really THAT much better. Or stated another way, is the E-M1 really overpriced? Or, is m43 really THAT expensive at the high-end level? I think not.
Full frame will most likely always be more expensive, the lenses always larger and more expensive. However, the image quality gap will continue to close. At some point the ONLY argument will be DOF, and even that concern is way overblown, let alone overused.
If this flickr account is really you; I like your pics better then your comments, I would expect a photographer like this one just cares about shooting nice photos instead of posting so many negative comments all the time.
Call them negative, I call it just simply replying to the nonsense fanboy comments. And not all of my comments are negative. It’s my opinion in the end, no one has to agree with any of them. They’re like my photos, if you like them, cool. If not, cool.
I just put a pic of lockers from a High School. ‘Nuff proof or what?
I agree there is alot of brand and format worshipping here, but thats on any forum dedicated to certain formats. some more then others. But your numberous replies outweigh them easily and yes they are negative. whats the use to do this in this forum other then to get negative replies in return. Does it bother you that much that worshippers praise their choice of platform, even if it not might be true. I myself love my choice, but like many others I am aware its not on par with the IQ of a sensor 4 times its size, but it is enough for what I do(which includes publishing in print.Unless there is satisfaction in doing the replying you do here,as a photographer you better use your energy on your work. But ofcourse, this is just an opinion. Peace.
Some very nice shots there…. although I would argue that the move to B+W is the key to making them pop more than a move from m43 to FF.
Either way – whatever you find does it for you… you seem to be making good images and work comftably with a range of systems…
But m43 is still the best 😉
No point at all. Most of your pics – which are few anyway – are made with cameras which are NOT FF35.
You might as well have been lent one for a couple of shots, Your pictures are also so random that they do not show the need of any peculiar camera. They are so few that they don’t show dedication to any task.
Finally they are not even a proof of your identity, or that they are made by the same person.
So give us a break before passing for a fraud, or the mindless idiot that you are known to be.
You’re pathetic… A pathetic ignorant man, but I’m sure you’ve heard worse with the way you go about forums.
I see why you are disliked and banned from other sites.
One, my flickr account does not make up all my photos. I put them up randomly. I’m a graphic artist/designer as you can see by some of my illustrations. Photography is just another one of my many hobbies. I’m a jack of all trades, master of none.
Two, whatever I shoot with, I own. I have no need to borrow anything, including lenses. If I want it, I get it, if I don’t like it, someone on eBay gets lucky.
Three, you for one can’t judge. I don’t even take you serious. In fact, your 15 minutes of fame BEEN up.
I’m done here.
MrALLCAPS,
Seriously, you need to ease up. Maybe seek professional help in that regard. Life is not easy for many.
As far as you photos (which some I like); instead of getting more equipment try a class, besides learning a thing or just remembering some stuff you forgot; there is a definite social advantage.
i like the photos…. ummmm I want to show mine…. I will be happy with your comments….there are of a pana g5, oly epl1, pana lz, and one of bb(blackberry)I enjoy now my hobbie…. of corse for me M43 is wonderfull… small and ligth…. i start two yaers ago after some 30 yaeras of no one pic…. so I do not know is mi hobbie is good… Thanks I open a flickr some days ago, is http://www.flickr.com/photos/112499585@N07/
Very nice photos – keep going!