Micro 4/3 Has m43 finally lived up to the promise?

It has definitely lived up to its promise of a smaller camera system that produces high quality images. Although it was never designed to nor will it ever replace the larger chip cameras for what advantages they offer.
But I do see the M4/3 users are a little confused or maybe it is just a divide in where consumer think the direction of the cameras should go. I for one am very happy to see the launch of the new higher quality lenses, but I find it interesting that many who protest at the cost of these lenses, sort of limiting the growth of M4/3s to a fancy P&S. I think there is room for both in the M4/3 world, high-end bodies and lenses and more inexpensive happy snap versions as well
 
Until you consider that the VAST majority of all of the great photographs taken through history were taken with gear far less technically advanced than today's amazing cameras. To me , if "the only conversation worth having is on image quality" that's a really boring conversation to have and one that rejects about 99% of the great photographs taken through photography's still relatively short history. To me, image quality beyond a certain point of "good enough" is all marketing bullshit. I'm usually too polite to say that and figure to each their own, but if you're gonna call my camera choices "toys" I'll be happy to call your oversize behemoths sorry substitutes for size..... oh, never mind.

But I actually do feel "to each his own" so maybe we can stop calling each other names and just talk. To ME the key ingredient in EVERY great photograph is getting the shot and having it communicate a vision. There are a lot of technical advances that make this easier today than ever before in most cases, but the difference in image quality between the best DSLR and the best APS and the best m43 is getting down to a level of meaninglessness in all but the most extreme circumstances. There are things you can do with a top DSLR that you can't do with an m43 camera and if those matter to you you should use one. But the reverse is also true - there are shots I'm faaar likelier to get with an m43 than a big DSLR and so it becomes the better tool for those. For that matter some of my favorite photographs were taken with the much smaller sensor GRD3 and even a few withcell phones. The image quality is so good in all of these cameras today that it's frankly about the last consideration I'd worry about. If its the most important thing to you, by all means knock yourself out. Just remember that just because it's your key criteria doesn't make it the only one that matters.

-Ray

Ok. I only JUST realized that my comment followed your post. My post wasn't in response to anything you'd written, but rather the 'general concept' of the post itself, and wasn't directed at anyone in particular. I did read the comment you had initially posted just now, and can see how my rather "general" comment has been misconstrued as a personal attack on your camera choices.

Hell, I love your NY street pics, so you're obviously using the right equipment, and probably house more knowledge about photography in your little finger than I in my entire cranial cavity. So perish the thought that I harbour any negative thoughts about you personally, or your photography gear, or that I would even think of commenting on it. Far far from it. I hadn't even read your comment, when I posted mine and I apologize profusely if I caused any offence whatsoever. That was not the intent of my post at all.

My observation, which in hindsight obviously stressed rather heavily on my distaste for the m4/3rd system, is that it's premise is built around the size of the sensor and touts it's greatest limitation as a virtue.
 
My observation, which in hindsight obviously stressed rather heavily on my distaste for the m4/3rd system, is that it's premise is built around the size of the sensor and touts it's greatest limitation as a virtue.

This is where people can argue about the system until they're blue in the face. You see the smaller sensor as a limitation because of pure IQ, but those who embrace it for the size of the sensor do it because the IQ is "good enough" and it enables the entire system to be smaller and easier to carry around.
 
Depends on what you see as its promise. The small size and convenience of the system is an obvious part that they've lived up to from day one. If it also includes the ultimate in performance too, they basically started living up to that in late 2010 with the GH2 and then more fully last year with the newest Oly Pens and the the G3, GX1, etc, only really lacking for great tracking in AFC with faster live view refresh. If yor definition includes IQ that will be as good as full frame and the best of APS cameras, it's not there and likely never will be, but it's gotten a lot closer - the differences are smaller than ever and won't matter to many but will to some.

For me, it lived up to its promise very VERY early, maybe from day one - every camera/system is about compromises and m43 has always been a set of compromises I could be happy with and there are fewer and fewer of them as it improves - in fact, for how and what I generally shoot, I'd say it makes no compromises in its current iteration. For people who demand the absolute best posssible IQ or AF reflexes capable of shooting an NFL game as a pro photo-journalist it may well never live up to that.

So, define its promise however you like and then judge from there... For me, yeah, waaaaay.

-Ray

I agree...the number one reason I picked up m43 was because it was smaller than the DSLRs I was hauling around and it was easy to adapt legacy lenses to. I honestly have never looked at my photos and thought "Damn, I sure wish i was using a DSLR". It's not that a DSLR doesn't have advantages but I like to take pictures of things that aren't moving so I rarely (if ever) come up against something that I just can't figure out a way to deal with. But what my kit(s) do give me is small, easy to carry around and now with the addition of a NEX a better (IMHO) way to use my legacy glass. In the end however I don't see this stuff as much different than any of the tools that I use to fix my engine or fix the garbage disposal. They allow me to make images. Sometimes I think we all think too much and ask too many questions. I remember years ago I was doing some martial arts training and one of the folks that I was training with started to ask why a movement we were practicing (monkey) looked a lot like another one we were doing (crane). After a bit of back and forth the Sifu got a little exasperated and blurted out..."you want do monkey, you want do crane, do crane". My longtime friend and teacher put it even better..."no talk...do". Many years later with my own students I know exactly what that means. Sometimes the point is just to do and the talking really gets in the way of things.

So has m43 lived up to my expectations? I can make images and it's small...so yes.
 
This is where people can argue about the system until they're blue in the face. You see the smaller sensor as a limitation because of pure IQ, but those who embrace it for the size of the sensor do it because the IQ is "good enough" and it enables the entire system to be smaller and easier to carry around.

The Sony NEX system, GRX systems, the DPX (foveon) all with APSCs are not that much bigger. And if portability is a main concern, the 4/3rd lenses apart from the pancakes, make the camera un-pocketable anyways.
 
Boid;84449And if portability is a main concern said:
On THIS much, we can certainly agree. People who refer to ANY of the CSC cameras as pocketable seem a bit delusional to me (or have MUCH bigger pockets than you and I). For me the savings in size don't really kick in until you get into telephoto range. One of the only reasons I stick with the m4/3 system is because I can't replace the reach of the Panasonic 100-300 (200-600 effective) in ANY other system in anything approaching a reasonable size.
 
Ok. I only JUST realized that my comment followed your post. My post wasn't in response to anything you'd written, but rather the 'general concept' of the post itself, and wasn't directed at anyone in particular. I did read the comment you had initially posted just now, and can see how my rather "general" comment has been misconstrued as a personal attack on your camera choices.

Hell, I love your NY street pics, so you're obviously using the right equipment, and probably house more knowledge about photography in your little finger than I in my entire cranial cavity. So perish the thought that I harbour any negative thoughts about you personally, or your photography gear, or that I would even think of commenting on it. Far far from it. I hadn't even read your comment, when I posted mine and I apologize profusely if I caused any offence whatsoever. That was not the intent of my post at all.

My observation, which in hindsight obviously stressed rather heavily on my distaste for the m4/3rd system, is that it's premise is built around the size of the sensor and touts it's greatest limitation as a virtue.

I didn't take it personally, but I took it as a direct shot at essentially anyone who'd choose m43 because IQ was the only conversation worth having. THAT'S the part I strongly disagree with. I'm not one of those people claiming that m43 has IQ equal to anything out there, but it does have IQ equal to or better than anything that HAD ever been out there until very few years ago. So if all of those great photographers of the past century got by with less, this should be "good enough" for the vast majority of modern shooters. So to me, "good enough" is the crux of the matter, rather than a weak argument and the obsession with megapixels seems like the "marketing BS" to me. So, we differ, perhaps strongly. But I'm not taking it personally. And I do still see a strong case to be made for full frame DSLRs, but it has more to do with the remaining superiority of PDAF for certain specific uses and with narrow DOF for them that likes it than with IQ.

Nonetheless, I'm happy that there are so many fine choices out there today and feel everyone should shoot whatever floats their boat. So maybe let's agree that there plenty of marketing BS to go around with the selling of EVERY type of camera and that everything from full frame to cell phone cameras are the best approach for some specific users.

You evidently didn't see m43 as having any promise to live up to, I clearly did, so in both cases it's lived up to the promise we saw for it. So, maybe the short answer to the thread title for both of us would be "yes". :D and we can move on from there...

-Ray
 
On THIS much, we can certainly agree. People who refer to ANY of the CSC cameras as pocketable seem a bit delusional to me (or have MUCH bigger pockets than you and I). For me the savings in size don't really kick in until you get into telephoto range. One of the only reasons I stick with the m4/3 system is because I can't replace the reach of the Panasonic 100-300 (200-600 effective) in ANY other system in anything approaching a reasonable size.

Which I think makes a great case for the K5, which I handled at a photography workshop recently. The body is not all that big for a DSLR, and it has these gorgeous tiny primes that I wouldn't mind carrying in a bag at all. The flexibility that your 100-300 gives will be difficult to circumvent though.
 
Image content over image quality, for me, wins any day whatever camera you choose to tote around. I have no allegiance to any particular brand or sensor size but its fair to say that my dslr has never seen the light of day since I got my first pen. The extra bulk of the dslr, I found, got in the way of my photography. The micro four thirds camera does not get in the way. I, for one, cannot dismiss the importance of this fact. It enables me to get out there and take photographs, and dare to try somethings new. I experiment with other cameras but I still come back to my pens ( i have three).
 
With cameras and lenses I start at the output and work back in order to decide what I need.

For me prints are the main output; I don't put much online (another entertaining discussion...)

When M43 first arrived I was intrigued because of the promise of IQ good enough for some of my shooting, and able to produce 11 x 17 or so prints.

I have a collection of M43 photographs that would not exist were it not for my GF1 and lenses. I simply would not have had my FF camera with me at all.

For my landscape work in particular (but also work involving lots of shadow) I found M43 more limited than FF. While M43 has evolved since then, so have FF sensors. I don't think the performance is nearly as close as some seem to indicate.

But, that doesn't really matter. As Ray has noted, M43 outperforms other sensors from only a few years ago. It's beyond 'good enough' for a huge range of photographers. So what matters is answering the question "is M43 good enough for your output, and subject matter?".

I think the case for other sensors, especially FF, remains strong. But that's not a criticism of M43. I am now choosing between an OMD and an X-Pro1. While I feel the latter has a better sensor, my choice will be because of the camera, not the sensor.
 
This is such an interesting discussion. Note that it keeps coming back to IQ and user preferences (UI?). I am a convert to serious compacts from full size DSLRs including the FF Nikon D700 (which I sold last year). There is no question, technically speaking, that larger sensors have the capability of producing higher quality images. I could see that even between my Nikon D700 (FF) and the D7000 (APS). But as Ray and others have noted it is not just about the technicalities of sensor performance. For that matter persons who are more highly competent with Photoshop can improve an image taken with any sensor beyond what those without that competency can do with the same picture. I recently questioned my stock agency about the size of images they wanted. I was surprised at the response. In recent years they have put pictures of mine into their archive taken of course with the Nikons, but also with the LX5 and the GF1. Lately I have been sending larger files taken with the NEX7 (6000 x4000 pixels), and the Xpro (4896x3264 pixels). When they replied to my inquiry about sizes sent to clients they said the highest they send is 3500 pixel jpegs. Everything I have been sending is being reduced before being sent to publishers. Now there are other issues to quality besides numbers of pixels as all of you know. Some have already mentioned highlight and shadow detail, for example. I have no doubt that larger sensors do better, on the whole, in these areas. But good enough for each person's purposes is good enough, period. And I know that in addition to IQ consideration, I often grab the camera that feels right in the hand and has a UI that I am comfortable with. Everything else is academic, and personal opinion. But for us, whatever else it is, it is fun.
 
Resident noob here chiming in.... it does seem like this compact system has come of age, not necessarily because of the sensor improvements (always going to be a compromise), but because of the lens ecosystem. Not the end-all-be-all-system-to-rule-them-all, but I have had a hard time finding another compact system that can totally replace it for me (especially the 12/2 for what I like doing).

The only time I feel like I want something more is when I am doing some of my rural landscape stuff. Country road driving or hiking, where I don't mind more size/weight. Lately, I have been going out with two cameras.. the E-M5, mostly with the 12/2 mounted, and then the Pentax K-01 with the FA 31mm mounted. I actually like this setup for me quite a bit, but the K-01 and FA 31 is big enough to have me thinking that I could just as easily have a FF w/ prime instead. I would *rather* have another APS-C or bigger based mirrorless.... keep checking out NEX and X-Pro1 for new lenses, updates, etc.
 
genuine-gear-ipad-5.jpg
 
Wow, that question kicked off quite the discussion!

While m43 has always been about acceptable image quality in a smaller than DSLR footprint, I've held back from it because I did not feel that the image quality was quite what I wanted when compared with the operation of the camera. For example, the Sigma DP1 shoots like it is powered by tiny snails on treadmills, but the image quality is stunning in the right conditions. M43 images never wowed me in the same way.

Now the OM-D has come along and blown the doors off the barn, so to speak, and we've got a mirrorless m43 camera that shoots like a mid level DSLR, and has image quality about as good as a decent aps-c camera. So, for me, that is a big step towards getting the plastic out of the wallet.

I've also been waiting for the video quality to catch up. While the Panasonic GH2 is capable of video as good or better than the 5D Mark II in many respects, the operating speed wasn't up to what I wanted. And frankly, it looks pretty ugly! The OM-D is capable of very decent video, much better than the Fuji X-Pro 1, and with any luck I can work with it in Premiere Pro as well as 5D Mark II footage. The OM-D also has the look of something I might dream of at night and awaken to find I needed to change my pants. :D

I fully agree that the range of lenses makes m43 a much more viable system now than it has ever been. The number of OEM and third party lenses seems to be growing all the time, and with the entry of Schneider-Kreuznach into the picture, we will have lenses that will probably be better than the cameras they will go on! It shows that m43 has really taken root as a system and ought to continue to be supported for some years.

The last few weeks in Melbourne have been very rainy, and the idea of a small, high quality weatherproof camera has played on my mind a lot! As soon as rain comes I shove my camera under my jacket or back in my bag, and lose photo opportunities. The upcoming GH3 is most likely weatherproof, but I bet it still looks like some bulbous faux-DSLR from 2005. But that new Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 lens? Wow. Give me that as a couple of fast primes and that's my system.
 
I'd like to know more about what improvements have gone into noise reduction and dynamic range for 4/3 sensors. Mostly I see more megapixels rather than reduction in noise. The older M8 at ISO 160 gives far cleaner images than the EP2 at ISO 200, and does not blow highlights like the EP2. The M9 is even better. Until I see an m43 camera that can at least match the M8, I will be sticking with the EP2 as my only mirrorless camera. I don't think the answer is more megapixels in the same size sensor: that decreases the size of the individual detectors. Smaller detectors saturate more easily, less dynamic range. That points to larger detectors, APS-C and bigger. I've read reviews that the Olympus EVF-2 is still the best available among mirrorless cameras. That is the second feature that must be substantially improved to warrant an upgrade.

A few points:
  • As you know the M8 format is a fair bit larger than APS-C, so that is a lot of ground for 4/3 to make up when it comes to image quality.
  • While base ISO noise remains an advantage for Leica M8/9 over 4/3, the latest MFT sensors (GH2, E-M5, G3, GX1) have surpassed both the M8 and M9 when it comes to high ISO noise. At least that is my impression in shooting my bother's M9 against my GH2 and E-M5, processing all RAW files in Lightroom. My brother feels the same way shooting his M9 and E-M5.
  • Dynamic range amongst current cameras is only weakly dependent on size of individual detectors or even format size for that matter. For example, note the extremely high DR of the Nikon D800 (smallest pixels of any 135 format camera) and NEX-7 (smallest pixels of any APS-C camera). Rather, it is the read noise of the sensor - the lower the noise floor, the higher the DR. While not quite matching the latest Sony APS-C sensors, the GH2 and E-M5 seem to offer noticeable improvements over the E-P2 in this area.
For me, MFT lived up to its promise when the Panasonic 20mm lens was introduced. As soon as I put that on my G1, I had a camera that gave me good enough image quality and depth of field control compared to my APS-C DSLRs and the 35-50mm equivalent primes I used them with, but in a much smaller and lighter package along with other niceties of CDAF (like face detection with automatic metering based on detected faces). As a result, I dumped my DSLRs in 2009, and with the exception of a brief Pentax K-5 fling, I've never looked back.

With the introduction of the Panasonic 14, 25, and Oly 45, my lens needs are now fully met. More lenses are great for the system, and some of them will get my money (eg, 75/1.8), but I don't need 'em.

For some reason that I can't fully identify, the E-M5 appeals to a whole group of people that were never taken with MFTs before. I still think the differences from GH2 or G3 are pretty modest, but the reaction to the E-M5 has been remarkable.
 
I'd love to know the signal processing algorithm used for CMOS sensors, how much is hardware- how much is firmware/software.

The noise at base ISO is driven by "dark current", the value that a pixel gives without any light hitting it. Saturation count is the maximum value that a pixel can deliver, ie more light hitting it makes no difference. The M9 sensor is somewhere around "2" for dark current and "50,000" for saturated count. The data sheet is not available for the KAF-18500, and I am estimating that based on other datasheets published with devices in the same 6.8um detector family and comparing performance with the M8. Kodak published the KAF-10500 long sheet. So it's easy to determine the dynamic range, the ratio of dark-current to saturation. The M8 had twice the dark-current of the M9, and performance of the M9 at 2500 is almost as good as the M8 at ISO 640. Other factors such as "Quantum Efficiency" also get improved with sensor design.

I'd love to read the data sheets on the newer CMOS sensors, but they are often not published.
 
Back
Top