Micro 4/3 Despite lust towards FF and DSLR dinosaurs, I'm just drifting towards m4/3...

Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Matt
An 85/1.8 on FF is an inexpensive and a fine lens and offers much.

And yes, the Nikkor is 350 grams; the closest equivalent that I'd love to shoot on M4/3 is perhaps the PanaLeica 42.5/1.2 which is much more expensive and even heavier! Upside down world :)
There's a reason I'm hanging onto my Nikon 85mm f/1.8G ... Even though Ming (Thein) tells me that the Z 85mm f/1.8 is in totally different league (and he really liked the 85mm f/1.8G!). That said, the short tele I'm most taken with at the moment is the Fujifilm 90mm f/2. Yes, it's bigger and heavier - but such a fine performer ...

M:
 

mike3996

Hall of Famer
Location
Finland
There's a reason I'm hanging onto my Nikon 85mm f/1.8G ... Even though Ming (Thein) tells me that the Z 85mm f/1.8 is in totally different league (and he really liked the 85mm f/1.8G!). That said, the short tele I'm most taken with at the moment is the Fujifilm 90mm f/2. Yes, it's bigger and heavier - but such a fine performer ...
I bet! 90/2 can do some serious bokeh damage as far as I can tell judging from equivalency to 135/2.8 lenses.

For M4/3 there'd be that wonderful new Voigtländer 60 mm f/0.95 that would handily fit into "fast 135" category.

My only issue with legacy SLR lens designs is their long MFDs.

A true (true to platform) M4/3 alternative such as Olympus 45/1.8 or Panasonic 42.5/1.7 focuses sufficiently close to serve as a super-casual macro detail lens. That is nice.
 
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Matt
I bet! 90/2 can do some serious bokeh damage as far as I can tell judging from equivalency to 135/2.8 lenses.

For M4/3 there'd be that wonderful new Voigtländer 60 mm f/0.95 that would handily fit into "fast 135" category.

My only issue with legacy SLR lens designs is their long MFDs.

A true (true to platform) M4/3 alternative such as Olympus 45/1.8 or Panasonic 42.5/1.7 focuses sufficiently close to serve as a super-casual macro detail lens. That is nice.
The little Panasonic is the real sleeper here - it focuses a lot closer than the Olympus and has O.I.S. ... Okay, not a big deal nowadays, but especially on a Panasonic body with Dual I.S., it's a true asset.

That said, I still own the 45mm f/1.8, too ... it's such a nice performer, and it's my second most used lens on - the GF1!

M.
 
Location
Boston Burbs
Real Name
David
I've owned both the P42.5 and O45. At the time I definitely preferred the P42.5 for it's close focus. But I always found it a bit short so I prefer the S56 I have now. I've also owned both the Nikon AF 85 f/1.4 and f/1.8, the older non AF-S versions. Some of my favorite portraits were taken with 85mm.
 

mike3996

Hall of Famer
Location
Finland
I had errands in a store and they have a camera section too. I decided to check every hot camera they had on shelf... No Leica M10-R's sadly. :(

Nikon Z50... really wonderful haptics on that body. Didn't notice a Z6 anywhere but now I have a feeling how it might be.

Panasonic S1... battery dead so sadly I didn't get to experience the EVF.

Canon EOS R. Not bad but for whatever reason the information texts look very soft in the viewfinder.

And finally, the Panasonic G9. Holy molasses, that viewfinder is much huger than expected, the eyepoint is very decent, the pincushion distortion nowhere as bad as I figured it might be. Easily the nicest VF of the bunch.

In other ways, the body feels super lightweight. It is large but still manageable, the impression of lightweightedness is easily attained I guess.

With Panasonic 20mm on front (IIRC, didn't pay much attention other than it's a pancake lens) and in 225-point AF mode (ie, full frame auto selection for you non-Panasonic people) it behaved quite weirdly to what I'm accustomed to my GX80 with its corresponding "49-point AF mode".

But it was a very positive impression. Oh the things one could do with a body like that and the Olympus 75-300 telezoom lens!
 

wt21

Hall of Famer
I found something odd in my recent dalliance with the Canon RP + 35/1.8. I kept stopping the 35 down to 2.8-8.0. I found when wide open, it had too little DOF. Yes the background blur was wonderful, but the subject was not in sufficient focus.
 
Last edited:

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Location
Lexington, VA
Real Name
Steve
I found something odd in my recent dalliance with the Canon RP + 35/1.8. I kept stopping the 35 down to 2.8-8.0. I found when wide open, it had too little DOF. Yes the background blur was wonderful, but the subject was not in sufficient focus.
I used MFT for a long time and I had to remember to stop down when I went to Fuji and especially the A7. Shallow DoF is not always desirable.
 

wt21

Hall of Famer
I now have just my g85 + O17/1.2, sigma 56/1.4 and PL12-60 (and some telephotos)

Not quite as amazing files as FF, but it’s working for me right now. I am debating if I should supplement the 17/1.2 or replace it with maybe a PL15 or O17/1.8.
 

pdk42

Regular
I posted this over on mu43:

Well, as someone who recently dipped his toes into FF mirrorless (Nikon Z7), I can say this:

  • The Nikon Z7's IQ is demonstrably better when you go peering at the files 1:1 in LR. That I can't deny at all. But, speaking as a pretty standard amateur photographer, I can tell you that apart from such pixel peeking, the Z7 did nothing to improve the practical quality of my images (I do mostly landscapes). By that I mean that on Flickr, Instagram, my on-line portfolio, plus the occasional A2/A3 print, the difference is zero or as near to zero as matters. This is a point that the various bloggers and reviewers really never fully address. Of course, there needs to be some baseline of IQ (since otherwise they'd all be telling us to go and buy MF), but I think for most people FF is overkill.

  • The one area where the Nikon's improved IQ should have helped me (esp as a landscape photographer) was DR. But the trouble is that nature often throws DR at us that is beyond even the best FF camera; 12-13 stops of DR compared to 10-11 is nice, but if the scene in front of you is exceeding 16 stops, you're in pretty much the same boat whether you have a Nikon Z7 or an Olympus EM1. So you have to do a multi-shot bracket - and the Oly multi-shot burst is faster and better implemented.

  • Once you get past this IQ point, the appeal of the Nikon fades away. Compared to Olympus m43, there are a bunch of downsides - slightly bigger, slightly heavier, more expensive, narrower choice of lenses, poorer image stabilisation, bigger files (slower computer), fewer camera features, slower e-shutter readout time, much smaller buffer, more troublesome sensor dust, poor WiFi mobile app, and many more.

  • The biggest downside on that list above is the image stabilisation, and the way that it constrains the shooting envelope available (at least for landscapes). The problem is this - you need to stop down FF lenses by 2-stops more to get to optimum optical performance and have the same DOF as m43. Then you can take away another two stops to be using both cameras at their base ISOs (what else for best IQ?). You are now at a 4 stop shutter speed disadvantage compared to FF. But you have an IS system that's probably 2-3 stops behind an Olympus EM1.3. That means you're 6-7 stops nearer to needing a tripod and that makes a HUGE difference if you're shooting landscapes in the blue/golden hour. Tripods are not only more weight and bulk, but they compromise the flexibility of shooting.

Now don't get me wrong, the Nikon Z is a nice system and if you need the IQ it delivers then it's a great choice. But you need to ask yourself whether you really need this level of IQ, because it comes with its own set of compromises and limitations.

Looking at the shots here on Cameraderie, it only emphasises my point - cover up the EXIF and it's often impossible to know whether you're looking at a shot from a Fuji GFX or a Sony RX100.
 
Last edited:
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Matt
I posted this over on mu43:



Looking at the shots here on Cameraderie, it only emphasises my point - cover up the EXIF and it's often impossible to know whether you're looking at a shot from a Fuji GFX or a Sony RX100.
I don't disagree - I just find the Z 6's output cleaner and (apart from a tendency for warm or even hot WB) much more malleable at the pixel level; and subjectively, I find that the files have more depth and look somewhat crisper even at screen sizes. The difference is often negligible as far as the *possibility* for pleasing results at screen (or usual print) sizes goes, but the Z 6 gives me more compelling images more easily. On the whole, though, especially for someone who mostly publishes online, the difference is certainly way less decivisive than many in the industry try to make us believe. Although I'm sure I would see things differently if I were a working pro with needs for resolution (though there's only a handful of people who actually do wall-sized stuff).

As a system, :mu43: is mature and delivers the goods. The advantages, though tangible, of bigger sensors, while there, are something you have to want and to use in order to make that step worthwhile. I see the improvements for myself, and I do use shallow DoF a lot in my shots, so I'm better served with FF on the whole. But I do love the fact that I have a small, sturdy, high-performance combo that's basically 60% the weight and 70% the size of my smallest FF outfit *and* is more versatile (the E-M5 III with the 12-45mm PRO - the advantage is even more pronounced with longer lenses ...).

It's a shame that people believe in "more/bigger is better" too much - or maybe we would have seen a better adoption of :mu43:. True, I'm as guilty as the next man for moving on (yes, I kept some of my :mu43: gear because I still love it, but I'm basically all-in on the Nikon Z system at the moment). However, I certainly didn't do it because :mu43: was lacking in any major way; tiny things that matter to me personally were key. But for most people, :mu43: is all they'd ever need (and "ought to want", to cite one of my favourite author's figures).

M.
 

pdk42

Regular
I don't disagree - I just find the Z 6's output cleaner and (apart from a tendency for warm or even hot WB) much more malleable at the pixel level; and subjectively, I find that the files have more depth and look somewhat crisper even at screen sizes. The difference is often negligible as far as the *possibility* for pleasing results at screen (or usual print) sizes goes, but the Z 6 gives me more compelling images more easily. On the whole, though, especially for someone who mostly publishes online, the difference is certainly way less decivisive than many in the industry try to make us believe. Although I'm sure I would see things differently if I were a working pro with needs for resolution (though there's only a handful of people who actually do wall-sized stuff).

As a system, :mu43: is mature and delivers the goods. The advantages, though tangible, of bigger sensors, while there, are something you have to want and to use in order to make that step worthwhile. I see the improvements for myself, and I do use shallow DoF a lot in my shots, so I'm better served with FF on the whole. But I do love the fact that I have a small, sturdy, high-performance combo that's basically 60% the weight and 70% the size of my smallest FF outfit *and* is more versatile (the E-M5 III with the 12-45mm PRO - the advantage is even more pronounced with longer lenses ...).

It's a shame that people believe in "more/bigger is better" too much - or maybe we would have seen a better adoption of :mu43:. True, I'm as guilty as the next man for moving on (yes, I kept some of my :mu43: gear because I still love it, but I'm basically all-in on the Nikon Z system at the moment). However, I certainly didn't do it because :mu43: was lacking in any major way; tiny things that matter to me personally were key. But for most people, :mu43: is all they'd ever need (and "ought to want", to cite one of my favourite author's figures).

M.
I understand entirely what you're saying here Matt. FF files do make for a more malleable experience in LR. For sure, you can't afford to do quite the same degree of cropping or shadow lifting with m43. However, at least for my eyes, and when using base ISO, I find that two shots taken of the same scene at the same time on m43 and FF will reveal only small differences. Take these two:

Image 1:
Image1.jpg


Image 2:
Image2.jpg


One is with a Z7 (45Mp FF), the other with an E-M10 ii (16Mp m43). Can you tell which is which? And remember that the E-M10ii is not the best m43 sensor available today.

You probably can (the hints are there), but without the benefit of a side-by-side comparison I don't think I could definitely say (for an "easy" image like this - base ISO, good light) which camera was used if I were presented with it on screen at this resolution.
 

mike3996

Hall of Famer
Location
Finland
I'm not quite sure if it's meaningful to have m43-vs-ff pissing contests over <2 megapixel web files.

Then again, it's very good to remind those who have forgotten, instagrams and facebooks don't see much over 4 megapixels ever, and mobile users even less.

Okay, ironically photos seen on a 6" device are small in the sense the circle of confusion is very large. Means one has to blur more to convey a play with shallow DoF. With a large medium the focus transition can be much more subtle. In this sense, M4/3 fits better for larger prints.

I recognized this phenomenon before entering photography hobby. I used to watch movies from a small 24" screen from a distance. Then I bought a real TV, a 42" HDTV while keeping my viewing distance (which was now appropriate for the size of the medium) and started to actually see focus transitions in cinema, the director's intent and how it helps the viewer's eye. Smaller screen over a large distance, everything was in focus. Modern cinema has sped up the lenses to appease the mobile crowd.
 

pdk42

Regular
I'm not quite sure if it's meaningful to have m43-vs-ff pissing contests over <2 megapixel web files.

Then again, it's very good to remind those who have forgotten, instagrams and facebooks don't see much over 4 megapixels ever, and mobile users even less.
I guess that's my point really. What do most amateur photographers do with their output? I'd guess it's mostly on-line with the occasional wall print or photobook thrown in. I contend that FF is mostly overkill for that so far as IQ at low ISO is concerned (I accept there might be other reasons for FF such as narrower DOF or better noise performance at high ISO). Even if you are committed enough to be in a photo club and do competitions, prints are invariably a max size of 40x50cm including the mount - again not a challenge for m43. Now I know the same argument probably applies to smartphone pics too - but of course smartphones don't have interchangeable lenses etc so the shooting envelope and experience is completely different.
 

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Location
Lexington, VA
Real Name
Steve
In good light, mu43 can hold it’s own. Low light became an issue. The 61 mp Sony FF sensor has a 26 mp APS-C crop. Mu43 is about half the size of APS-C, so figure the 12 mp sensors have similar pixel sizes. It’s interesting that mu43 never tried a newer tech 12 mp sensor, which might have had much better low light behavior. Sony did that with the A7S series for 12 MP FF sensors. Mu43 could have had 12 and 20 mp models.
 
Last edited:

Tilman Paulin

All-Pro
Location
Vancouver B.C.
Real Name
Tilman
It’s interesting that mu43 never tried a newer tech 12 mp sensor, which might have had much better low light behavior. Sony did that with the A7S series for 12 MP FF sensors. Mu43 could have had 12 and 20 mp models
Isn't the GH5s basically that?
Had it had IBIS I would have been interested in it... (Bit of a high price though... but I guess the "economy of scale" already didn't work for the regular m43 sensors - much less so for a specialized sub-set... :( )
 

Steve Noel

All-Pro
Location
Casey County, KY
This week We went to Cumberland Falls, Ky. I carried my only body (E-M5i) with the heavy 35m Pentax adapted lens on a light collapsible monopod. I like the size weight combo, for the balance and stability. I also like the perspective for a single focal length. I never felt handicapped by the 35mm on m4/3. But, when I put them on the computer, I am always, a bit underwhelmed. Just not the startling detail, that I want. BUT, the results aren't for me. Its for friends and family, and they are happy with what I get. And so, I keep the m4/3, because of the personal usability. It just "fits". Oh yes I've looked over the fence at the other guys, and even jumped the fence several times over the years, but, here I am, back with Olympus. And, I have no business reading threads like this.
 

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom