Micro Four Thirds System cameras

Closed Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    208

    Does the NEX, Pana and Oly units have readily available lens filters?


  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,115

    I don't think you should worry about lens filter as major brands like B+W and Hoya does have a whole range of it. Furthermore, Carl Zeiss already announced that they will make lens for m3/4 systems as well. This is one of the reasons I go for a m3/4 system as my second camera


  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    11,711

    micro 3/4 and equivilent nex5/nx200 are becoming mass market, basically almost low to mid dslr quality but in a smaller package, I presume nikon, pentax, canon will follow soon with their equivilent and maybe in a few years time, dslr become the niche market for prosumer/semi and pro who won't compromise anything for quality


  4. #14

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    3,377
    Quote Originally Posted by imparanoic:
    dslr become the niche market for prosumer/semi and pro who won't compromise anything for quality
    No compromise for quality means either:

    1. Buying something like a hasselblad digital camera; or
    2. Going back to medium or large format film (which a lot of "prosumers" have done).

    DSLR is the next best thing, however good the newer models are.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,652
    Quote Originally Posted by luckycat:
    No compromise for quality means either:

    1. Buying something like a hasselblad digital camera; or
    2. Going back to medium or large format film (which a lot of "prosumers" have done).

    DSLR is the next best thing, however good the newer models are.
    option 2 has huge implications in terms of quality of use, pictures my be better in the printed medium but what a hassle to get them in a format most people use.

    Wont 4/3rds format kill off most of the bottom end DSLR market?

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    3,377

    That is why they were designed, but i'm not so sure. Dslr users also like the"feel" of their equipment so i think the low range dslr market will stil exist.

    Re film, I see what you're saying (i.e. They then can't be photoshopped without converting them digitally) but that is the real art of photography - timing, patience and framing. Not a hope for the best scattergun approach :-)


  7. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    CT/NYC for now. On to Hong Kong soon.
    Posts
    7

    Sorry to go on a bit . . .

    OK, I didn’t want to get into this all THAT much, since this is not a photog web site, but a Hong Kong web site. Still, I’ll say my little bit here and then leave it be.

    First and foremost, you can get great images from a m4/3 camera. There is no doubt about that. I’ve spent a day here and there with a few of the Panasonic GH series cameras, and they do a great job. Photography is much more about the carpenter than the tools, and a good m4/3 camera is a very fine tool and unless you are a REALLY good photographer I can’t see it holding someone back. That said . . .

    First, part of the whole point of ‘four thirds’ is that the sensor is a 4:3 aspect ratio instead of a 3:2. For me, personally, since I’m old enough to fart dust, I’ve been shooting 3:2 for my entire life, either in 35mm, or medium format 120 film cameras that are either 6x4.5 or 6x9, or DSLRs. (An aside. Everyone should have to shoot a couple of dozen rolls of film in 6x4.5 where when you bring the camera to you eye the ‘default’ is portrait and not landscape. Makes you think when shooting other formats). So for me it’s tough to compose the frame correctly when using a m4/3 camera, I’m assuming I’m going to crop a bunch of the frame to make a 3:2 image, so I’m losing a bunch of the real estate on the already small sensor. Maybe if I had spent a lot of time with a Mamiya 6 instead of a Fuji GA-645 this wouldn’t be much of a problem, but because of what I’ve used before the aspect ratio is less than ideal.

    Second, the micro 4/3s sensor is, well, as the name implies, pretty micro. Compared to a full frame camera, the APS-C sensors are 1.5x field of view compared to full frame, while micro 4//3s is 2x magnification. More about this in a bit. But you’re really not doing an apples to apples comparison with the NEX vs. m4/3 line, because the sensor on the NEX is significantly larger.

    Lastly, legacy lenses. Since the newest version of the NEX firmware includes a ‘shoot with no lens’ option, I assume they will be releasing adapters for other lens mounts. I have a ton of really cool old Japanese glass for Leica thread mount. I used to shoot them on actual Leica IIIs for years when I was under the impression that a camera with a nearly impossible to use film loading system must somehow be better. As I got older and less masochistic I stuck them on a Hexar RF. They are interesting lenses that have a distinct ‘look’ to them, they aren’t all purpose shooters, but if you’re doing a portrait an uncoated 90mm Nikon long focus lens gives a fascinating, lower contrast, retro look that I’ve never seen anywhere else. Pair that up with Tri-X pushed a stop in processing to get a little extra grain, and it’s hard NOT to take a compelling picture.

    On an APS-C that 90 becomes a 135, which is mildly annoying but workable. On an m4/3 it’s a significantly more annoying 180 with an odd crop. My Canon 135 from the same era becomes a nearly useless 205 but on m4/3 it’s a completely useless 270 that I can use to make compelling portraits of, well, bugs. From a distance. And, of course, you’re bazillion dollar 21mm Leica becomes a fast and good 42 that is close to indistinguishable from any decent prime 50 that will cost $200.

    These days my funky old lenses sit on a shelf in an eternal sulk because I don’t love them anymore, as the cost and annoyance of developing/scanning 35mm seems hardly worth the bother (medium format is different). I’ve been waiting for years for someone to take the (really quite nice) full frame sensor out a D700 and stick it in a smaller, no mirror rangefinder body, and not put the word ‘Leica’ on it anywhere so it sells for USD 1000 instead of USD 7500 and up. For me, the NEX-5 gets awfully close to that with an APS-C sensor, even if the lack of a viewfinder means I’d have to shoot it on a tripod or in ‘soccer mom’ mode, while the m4/3 cameras just don’t even get out of the the starting blocks.

    Again, the m4/3 cameras are not bad in any sense, they are very good and for image quality they settle in nicely between a point and shoot and a DSLR. But to me the whole 4/3s movement was founded to fight the Nikon/Canon hegemony and, for better or for worse, the rebels seem to have lost to the hegemons. Olympus and Panasonic seem to be trying to breathe one last bit of life into the idea with the m4/3s ‘systems’ but it’s a tough one to make work.


  8. #18

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tai Hang
    Posts
    744

    Micro 4/3s are selling like crazy, I moved from a 5D mk2 to a first generation Panasonic G1, and it was a revolution. I could chuck a good quality sensor with coverage from 28-400mm 35mm equiv and a f1.7 prime into the bottom of a bag and take it everywhere. That's where the value comes from. If you're worried you might not use a full DSLR much because of its size.....i would highly reccomend a m4/3 camera.

    Was going to upgrade to the G3, but decided since i rarely take the 20mm f1.7 off the camera, i'll give the Fuji X100 a whirl.