Since when Panasonic announced the G1
And I do fully agree with what he says here: “To some, that slower, more considered world is a blessing: you get back to the roots of photography and you find that one decision impacts another and that putting dedicating your brain power to those domino-like decisions really does impact how good your image will be and have much fun you have capturing it.“.
Amen 🙂
17 Responses
He talks like the only alternative to the 4/3 are the D3 or D700 – heavy and expensive. There’s also a plethora of cheaper and smaller DSLRs that still kill the 4/3 in terms of IQ and overall performance – K-x comes to mind.
Yeah……. but Thom, if only MFT would be CHEAPER!!!!!
It took Mr. Hogan almost a year of use to figure out the m4/3 format. He obviously did not like it at first, when he tried to use it the same way he uses a DSLR. I’m glad he finally found the strengths of this system.
@Atkins, actually, the cameras Hogan mentioned were the D300s and D700, and he’s not ignoring the weaknesses of the system. What he did was list the perceived weaknesses and show how working around them with old film techniques has improved his overall work. My digital experience has been almost the opposite of my film experience. With film, I became more deliberate as I moved up in format from 35mm to medium format. With digital, I’m more deliberate with my Sony DSC-V3 than with my Olympus E-620 because it’s harder to get something lost from a smaller sensor.
> There’s also a plethora of cheaper and smaller DSLRs that still kill the 4/3 in terms of IQ and overall performance
As I’ve written many times elsewhere, even the smallest and lightest DSLR does not fit in my vest or jacket pocket with the lenses I want to use on it. The difference between having a camera handy and it hanging from your neck is considerable. And when you go off trail, you don’t want cameras swinging from neck straps.
> It took Mr. Hogan almost a year of use to figure out the m4/3 format. He obviously did not like it at first, when he tried to use it the same way he uses a DSLR.
Really. Please show me where I wrote that. I bought an E-P1 when it first came out, took it to Africa with me, and showed a string of photos I took with it there on my site for over a month. I did write that ultimately you can’t get state-of-the-art DSLR levels of image quality out of the m4/3 cameras, but you still can’t, and may never, as size does matter with sensors. Whatever improvement a m4/3 can achieve, an APS can achieve, too, so the difference will always remain. The question has been and always will be: how high a bar do you need to get over with image quality. I thought I made it very clear that m4/3 got over a bar high enough that it became part of my regular kit in the field.
That “slower, more considered” pace is exactly why I put away my DSLR (admittedly an older one 😉 and went back to my OM-1n. I have found that photography becomes a nearly spiritual practice just by slowing down and making more decisions before hitting the shutter.
“As I’ve written many times elsewhere, even the smallest and lightest DSLR does not fit in my vest or jacket pocket with the lenses I want to use on it. The difference between having a camera handy and it hanging from your neck is considerable. And when you go off trail, you don’t want cameras swinging from neck straps.”
Well, you are not talking about pockets anywhere in your post (your point stands though). But you are addressing things like weight and price – the K-x with the 21mm prime is 650gr vs the 400gr of an EP-2 with the Panasonic 20mm. Not that bad. Also the K-x with the 21mm would be $1060 and an EP-1 with the 20mm – $985. If you put the EP-2 you are at 1249 (BH photo prices). So the MFT are inexpensive only compared to your gear.
I don’t want to bash here or something, I love the MFT, but I just don’t agree how you put it (of course that’s just my opinion).
To get even more back to the roots I opted for a used Sigma DP2. The image quality is even better as 4/3 and with the fixed lens there I’m not in danger to get ripped off with the exorbitant price tag on 4/3 plastic lenses. 🙂
Thank god the word “some” is written….i got rid of my G1, colors suck and DRange sucks so bad…everything you pull out of he shadows have so much noise, even at iso 400. What both panasonic and olympus have to do is come with better sensors. At least at the same level of the D5000….if they dont, sooner or later canon and nikon will come out with their systems and the competition is going to be hard…
“Well, you are not talking about pockets anywhere in your post (your point stands though). But you are addressing things like weight and price – the K-x with the 21mm prime is 650gr vs the 400gr of an EP-2 with the Panasonic 20mm. Not that bad. Also the K-x with the 21mm would be $1060 and an EP-1 with the 20mm – $985. If you put the EP-2 you are at 1249 (BH photo prices). So the MFT are inexpensive only compared to your gear.
I don’t want to bash here or something, I love the MFT, but I just don’t agree how you put it (of course that’s just my opinion).”
Totally agree…and the K-x (which i dont own) seems to have better IQ all togheter (DR, noise). The m4/3 still is too expensive for what offers…not to say i dont beleive in the system…i still think is the future for the vast majority of consumers…but it has to improve…
Am I dumb, or what? Where’s the article? The link goes to his main page (showing an article about Nikon Inventory) and the archive has May 25th as its most recent article.
Where is the post under discussion?
The front page of Thom’s site has only a post about Nikon inventory.
The 2010 archive does not contain any of the text that’s been quoted here.
“Where is the post under discussion?”
Can’t find it either.
His front page is constantly updated, like a blog, the comment is on http://www.bythom.com/2010%20Nikon%20News.htm now.
While I don’t agree with some comments, I appreciate his affection for the system. But websites constantly repeating that m4/3 cameras are slow, have limited ISO capability and bad DR range makes people who have not tried them think they are cr*p. The problem is that Thom is comparing them to 10 times more expensive cameras ( than E-PL1) with sensor 4 times larger that are at least two times heavier. Not to mention the skills needed to really use DSLR potential. A friend has bought Canon 550D recently and complained to me after a week of use that the images are not better than she got from her p&s. So should I start by explaining her to shoot RAW instead of jpeg?
The point of m4/3 is that these are cameras for mortals, considering price, weight and ease of use. You can operate them the way you do a p&s and get DSLR quality images. They should be compared to APS-C DSLRs, the K-x, the EOS 500, the D5000 and it should be explained that while you get a bit worse ISO, DR and speed compared to those, you get a significantly smaller package ( with any kind of zoom ), you get WYSIWYG live view and a usable video with AF, as well as all the benefits of an interchangeable lens system. And it has not reached the limits of development or accessories range as DSLRs have.
There’s a 17000 USD medium format Mamiya announced today on dpreview and I bet Nikon D3s are awful compared to it.
“To get even more back to the roots I opted for a used Sigma DP2. The image quality is even better as 4/3 and with the fixed lens there I’m not in danger to get ripped off with the exorbitant price tag on 4/3 plastic lenses. :-)”
Hehe, that were my thoughts exactly. 🙂 Worked quite nicely for me too. Saved quite a bit of money that way and am very happy with my photos. (And the DP’s are even smaller and lighter than the M43 cameras…)
Let’s wait for the supposed Sony NEX-7 or 9 at the Photokina. I thought to get a NEX-5, but the user interface is too horrible for photographers. Actually the NEX cameras are using quite the same sensor as the Leica X1, and the NEX form factor is smaller than 4/3 cameras.
Another point is the continues change of camera models to feed the dumb consumer. And that means you will lost money on your old camera. And at this point I would opt for a used Leica M9. At the beginning its a lot of money, but you can sell a Leica always and still after 10 years without loosing too much.
I am really starting to lose faith in m4/3.
I really wanted to switch to m4/3 since as it got announced and G1 was released in fall 2008. G1 lacked video so I decided to wait a bit for GH1 in spring 2009. When I learned how much is GH1 I was shocked. I immidiately went and bought G1. As a FZ50 user I wasn’t very impressed. Going from FZ50 to G1 I traded FZ50’s 35-420mm F/2.8-3.7 for G1’s 28-90mm F/3.5-5.6. It was dissapointing to see that I lost the ability to shoot at night and zoom all the way. Still I learnt to cape with that and love my G1.
But disappointment slowly returns. Panasonic has only one somewhat fast lens (20mm F/1.7). It also has 4 expensive and rather slow lens: (28-280mm F/4.0-5.8 video; 90mm F/2.8 macro; 14-28mm F/4 wide and the new 16mm F/3.5 fisheye).
1) No F/1.4 (or 1.2) AF lens.
2) Existing lens are slow AND expensive.
3) Leica M adapter (DMW-MA2M) costs $250! I think it’s ridiculous price for a piece of electronics-less metal.
4) Camera bodies are rather bulky. Just look at the Panasonic’s own L1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-L1 . It’s DSLR. It has mirrow and optical viewfinder! It still looks more compact than G1.
5) Availability problems.
I’ll wait till I see if GH2 and GF2 have any significant improvements. If they disappoint me or cost a fortune, I’ll look into selling my m4/3 gear and taking my excellent Voigtlander Nokton 35mm F/1.2 to the Sony NEX system.