1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Who say's 4/3rds is not good enough?

Discussion in 'Panasonic Chat' started by Bone_Idle, Apr 26, 2012.

  1. Bone_Idle

    Bone_Idle Well-Known Member

    Reading 43rumours web site and there's a link to some photos in the Guardian but Amos Chapple of life in the Iranian-Kurdish village http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/ira...lage-amos-chapple#/?picture=388753621&index=0

    As amos himself explained "“The UK Guardian have just published a gallery of images from Iran which are currently featuring on the front page of their website. All pictures shot with m43 kit! They will be running a two-page spread in the paper edition of the newspaper later in the week also. Pictures shot using a GH2 camera body and 25mm Leica, 45mm Olympus, 7-14mm and 20mm Lumix lenses. Hope you’re well, congrats on the lens survey – lets hope they listen!!
    Best from St. Petersburg, Russia.
    Amos.

    Quote courtesy of 43rumours.com. http://www.43rumors.com/a-great-wor...ciorio-explains-why-m43-for-pros-makes-sense/

    Can't complain at the quality, seems like more and more pro's are favouring smaller and more portable kit to achieve excellent results without the weight and bulk.
     
  2. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Interesting pics:cool:

    Anyway, who cares what the pros do....if I paid any attention to the macro shooting pros I might think I'd be better off with, for example, a D3 and a 105mm whilst taking care to ensure I consistantly miss focus on the nearest parts of the subject.:rolleyes:
     
  3. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    I must admit that I considered that the smaller again than APS-C sensor was not likely to be good enough. However a bout of illness last year saw me buy a 4/3 dslr, and in truth the quality exceeded my expectations, using a 25mm prime lens I was truly surprised, admittedly I was not using high iso settings, but on finished results at A3+ I cannot really notice any difference from the results from my Nikons.
     
  4. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    It's the photographer not the camera. :rolleyes:

    The only purpose of shooting with a larger sensor is to help with noise ceiling and printing very large. Like A2. Or doing alot of aggressive cropping. But there have been great improvement with noise handling on the 4/3rd system.



    4/3rds is still capable of giving decent DOF affect with the right lens selection.
     
  5. phaeo

    phaeo Well-Known Member

    If you buy your self an old Olympus OM System 50 mm lens and cheap adaptor off ebay you well find that you well get some really great Depth of Field shots...
     
  6. AlecM

    AlecM MiniMe

    Took some shots of my roses today, one set with GX1 and 20mm f1.7 and the other with D7000 and 50mm f1.4.
    Chose the best from each set and applied identical post production to both, then compared them side by side.
    The one with the richer colours and smoother tonal changes and detail made it on to my Flckr site. It was a stand-out better result.




    ...it was taken with the GX1.....
     
  7. Done_rundleCams

    Done_rundleCams AP Forum Ambassador to Canada

    Great pics and would be excellent for this months (Travel) competition :)

    I still think that the content is most important and, then, the person pressing
    the shutter :)

    Cheers,

    Jack
     
  8. ajecphotos

    ajecphotos Active Member

    G2 has been a good 4/3rd camera looking at reviews of it.
     
  9. Footloose

    Footloose Well-Known Member

    What baffles me, is why 4/3rds cameras regularly get 'dismissed' image-quality-wise, whilst m4/3rds cameras effectively using the same format etc, don't get anything like the same level of 'Flack'. I also rather suspect that a lot of those who dismiss 4/3rds, do so purely on it's sensor size, and probably have never actually used one on a regular basis.
     
  10. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    Micro four thirds suffers from the same 'limitations' as traditional four thirds but I suspect that image processing and sensor design/build has improved so much in the last 2 or 3 years that the difference in noise levels between APS and 4/3rds sensors are much less obvious than they may once have been. Unless Oly decide to cough up a new proper 4/3rds camera with up to date senor technology the reputation of normal 4/3rds may never recover.
     
  11. nailbrush

    nailbrush Well-Known Member

    I settled on a m3/4 Oly E-P2 for my first camera and this was after trying the entry DSLR's from Canon, Nikon and Pentax.

    After a year, and some improvement in my photography I started to wonder if I should move up to a DSLR. I was considering the 600D and the 50mm prime. In the end I got myself a 45mm (90mm) prime for the E-P2. I just don't see the need to go big now and feel more comfortable with a more discrete camera. For 99% of what I am likely to do it is fine.
     
  12. IvorETower

    IvorETower Little Buttercup

    Interestingly as nailbrush was on the photowalk with others including me yesterday in London and we talked about MFT.....
    I'm fortunate enough to be going to Canada next month. I am torn between taking my D5100 with 16-85 and 55-300 lenses, or my newly acquired E-PL3 with 14-42 and Panasonic 45-200. I know my way around the Nikon's controls and menus etc and am confident of getting some good "souvenir" photos. But, and it's a very big but, it (camera + lenses) appears to weigh about a third as much as my Nikon stuff, and it takes up far less space. It will also be much easier to handle when trying to take any discrete shots.

    For all but high-speed action where continuous focus on a moving target is required (eg planes flying past at airshows or olympic sprinters), I recon that the Olympus will take shots that are, for all intents and purposes, every bit as good as those from cameras with APS-C sensors. If you don't blow your prints up to advertising-hoarding size I do not think that you would tell what size the camera sensor was.

    I would therefore suggest that your E-PL2 will serve you perfectly well, nailbrush, and being so much smaller and lighter than a DSLR you will almost certainly take it out more than a full-blown DSLR
     
  13. thornrider

    thornrider In the Stop Bath

    If you want to see what micro 4/3 can do see my three photos on the Readers Gallery Pages 1 and 2 at the moment - all called NEC Classic Car Show. All three were taken hand held at 800 ISO with very low shutter speeds - mostly 1/15 second.
     
  14. LargeFormat

    LargeFormat Well-Known Member

    In the seventies I bought OM kit because it was small. Olympus took a brave stance with 4/3 and it is now paying off and provides a compact solution to most needs.
     
  15. lfc1892

    lfc1892 Well-Known Member

    m43 kit is pretty good and getting better all the time. certainly, the gap between small and larger sensors is closing with the latest batch, but there is still a way to go. high iso noise and particularly dynamic range. I much prefer the sensor on my nex5 but the lenses are so poor that I switched to a g3 with a kit zoom and 20mm prime. great combination and I use it a lot, but it doesn't deliver the same image quality as my d5000.
     
  16. thornrider

    thornrider In the Stop Bath

    Interesting to see the comments about high ISO noise running through this thread. What is high ISO in digital ? In film days 800ASA would have been so high that you had to enjoy grain like golf balls to use it. The Panasonic GX1 has no visible noise to speak of at 800 ISO. So is high ISO something like 6400 ISO ? In film days you wouldn't even have dreamt about 6400 ISO so why criticise micro 4/3rds at high ISO? Surely we should praise cameras that can get away with it rather than consider it a norm that everything has to achieve or be ascribed as a fault or notable limitation. In my view digital images should be considered normal if taken at 100 ISO, or 160 ISO, or even 250 ISO - in which case micro 4/3rds performs brilliantly.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2012
  17. lfc1892

    lfc1892 Well-Known Member

    Good point with regards to the noise and what qualifies as high noise. 800 isn't high nowadays, and in most situations from day to day, you don't really need to go higher than 800, but I often shoot street and when I do, a lot of the situations are quite gloomy and badly lit, making it desirable to have a camera that can go up to 1600 or maybe higher with an acceptable amount of noise. It's not a deal breaker if a camera can't, but when other sensors can, it's shame that M43 doesn't have that feather to it's cap just yet.
    Another difference I have found with M43 is DOF and bokeh. Pretty sure that there is more DOF making it harder to get lovely soft Bokeh, but then the upside I guess is, it's harder to miss focus! Could be wrong on the DOF though.
    Don't get me wrong, I am not against M43, as I just switched to it, but there are certainly things that can be worked on.
     
  18. Graham_RM13

    Graham_RM13 Well-Known Member

    "Who say's 4/3rds is not good enough?"

    Probably the same type of person that never actually enjoys their food :rolleyes:

    I imagine them debating in their mind the merits of; the make of the Pizza Oven, the heating fuel, refractory, convection, direct radiance... Then there are the styles; bases, crusts, toppings, size...

    Of course to get 4/3rds you have go for an "All you can eat" deal :D

    The analogy works well, in that we have the equivalent of the disposable camera in the microwave products, and canteen offerings at one end of the price/quality spectrum and the "World Best Pizza" being an internationally awarded accolade hotly debated and voted on ;)

    It's always a matter of personal choice, but at least with pizza (or any debatable food) the end product has far more influence in choice than the process by which it arrives on the table. :cool:
     
  19. lfc1892

    lfc1892 Well-Known Member

    I can sort of see where you are coming from, Graham, but I don't think the analogy works perfectly well in this case. The main reason being that for certain given environments, an m43 unit or compact camera can't give the same results as a high end slr. One would give you a hand baked pizza from Gordon Ramsay, the other, a deep pan from the freezer aisle at Sainsburys. In many shots taken in many conditions, the m43 would be just as good, but not always. If you happen to shoot the sorts of shots that m43 units aren't great at, ie fast action, low light, high dynamic range requirements etc then sure, go for a top end unit, if not, m43 is great. Which is why I switched to it.
     
  20. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    But remember, in others a dslr cannot match the results from m43. Liveview focus speed, discreet shooting, etc.
     

Share This Page