A (The?) Real Problem with M43

J

Joel_Partch

Messages
52
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
Strange how this format has been a victim of opprobrium since it launched and to date . . . however the problem seems to be that all the lenses are quite good (very few without major flaws) but much too small and plagued with sample variation.
For instance, I would love to see a wide lens that doesn't have unacceptable flare issues.
I'd like to have a 17mm f1.2 that works properly (I'm on my fourth attempt to find one that isn't broken).
I'd like to have a 12mm f1.4 that isn't badly decentred (heading for my third).
I'd like the Laowa 7.5mm if it wasn't just ridiculously, pointlessly tiny and therefore vignettes like a glaucoma patient at all apertures.
I have a Mark 1 12-35/2.8 that is sharper than any other 12-35/2.8 in the world, as far as I can tell. At least it's a lot sharper than the one(s) used by DXO to build their lens profile, because the processor hugely over-sharpens, expecting a softer target.
And the lenses are expensive: the kit lenses are actually excellent, optically, which reduces the attraction of premium fast versions at 10x the price.
And by the time you've added a grip to make the little things useable, they're no smaller than FF, but your DoF control is hugely reduced. Everything is too small.
Having said that, I am fond of my slick little, quick little M43 B-kit. More so, I think, when I find useable copies of lenses . . .
 
I've never had an issue with any MFT lens other than shutter shock. I even find the prices reasonable when all is considered but just about all my lenses have been bought used at what I've thought were reasonable prices.

My main issues have been with the Panasonic bodies. The shutter shock debacle has IMO been an absolute disgrace and I'm not happy with the relatively poor evf's my GX80 and GX9 have. Other than that I'm mostly happy.

I do think that the razor thin dof thing is done to death these days. Once upon a time people struggled to get enough dof but these days we see so many pictures with one eye/blade of grass in the dof and whilst there's a time and place and subject for that it's not what I want most of the time, Most of the time with FF (and I grew up in the days of film) I'd be at f5.6-11 with occasional forays into smaller or wider apertures and MFT can easily match most of that with an f1.8 lens. Much of the time I use MFT at f1.8-f4 with occasional forays beyond when making a conscious decision to do so. That's just me. I do know there are people who insist on taking every picture on ff at f1.4 and even f1.2. That's just not for me.

I've posting this before but I'll post it again, it's a piece I mostly agree with.

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/06/in-defense-of-depth.html
 
Last edited:
its horses for courses really , this time last year I had no problem lugging around crop and full frame nikons or canons and there associated large lenses and yes you can get really good i.q from any of these with the right software and money .
but heart failure and a need to reduce carried weight has certainly made MFT a lifesaver for me ,in fact if not for Olympus and panasonic I would probably now be building model boats out of matchsticks ..
personally I have yet to find a lens I dont like from either brand and the olympus ability to use older ,cheaper four thirds pro lenses has also been a no brainer I love my 50-200SWD and 1.4 tc combo . and the oly 60mm macro is a a must have
 
I was a user of M4/3 for a number of years having a number of bodies and lenses and never experienced the issues that you have had. In fact, it's been the most reliable system I've owned with the most consistent lenses.

Overall comparing like for like they are noticeably lighter than FF as a system. Everything too small? The EM1-II is one of the best, if not the best body I've handled in terms of ergonomics, and I have big hands. I appreciate you've had a bad experience, and clearly the system isn't for you but your experience does seem to be in the very small minority (y)
 
Joel_Partch said:
however the problem seems to be that all the lenses are quite good (very few without major flaws) but much too small and plagued with sample variation.
Click to expand...
My experience with M43 is that it does well what I want it to do. I currently use 6 MFT bodies each fitted with a native lens. Between them they cover the range from 9mm to 400mm. in addition, I've previously owned and upgraded from a further five bodies and 5 lenses as my needs changed. So far I haven't seen any sign of intrinsic faults in any of the M43 kit I've owned.

I can only think that you're incredibly unlucky.
 
I've dipped my toe in micro 4/3 before, and still have my current kit; Kodak S1 with the dual kit and an Olympus 100-300. I like it. I can't say I moan at the image quality, it looks fantastic to me, even JPEG shooting is good. When I want a change on my daily stroll, I tend to take this one out with me. Shame it doesn't have a view finder, but you can't have everything!
 
Joel_Partch said:
I'd like to have a 12mm f1.4 that isn't badly decentred (heading for my third).
Click to expand...

Wouldn't say my 12/1.4 is badly decentred, not getting the crazy sharp wide open one or two reviews mention
Actually think they is just hyperbole, because its very useable at 1.4 and excellent by 1.8
Best performance at the edges and corners is f2.8 to f4, maybe others are not satisfied with that, I am

Are the lenses that expensive, my 35-100/2.8 mk1 is as good as any lens I have ever had in that range
Also goes for the 8-18, that is better than the much praised Fuji 10-24, had them both so can compare

Olympus 12-40 is also excellent, only kept the 12-35 because of size and dual is compatibility with my cameras
So no, I do not agree that the lenses are too expensive or lacking in quality control, only had one dud myself
 
I came from Canon to Sony via Olympus.
I loved the size, weight, IQ of the m43 but my main camera was Sony FF.
I traded my Oly gear for the a6300 - same battery and lens mount.
I can't fault any of the bodies and lenses I owned but preferred the Panasonic 70-300 to the Olympus version.
Even found the kit 14-42 lens to produce more than acceptable results.
The 12-40 Pro was a fantastic lens!!
 
Last edited:
To be fair, I think M43 is undervalued for distance work: the tele lenses are excellent by any standards, and at those focal lengths the weight and size savings are significant. AF is good enough for BIF and running chickens. Enough said. But for portraits, even the best lenses are no better than standard FF optics, and wide-angle options are still imperfect: as I said, flare seems to be an insuperable problem for complex little lenses.
 
Joel_Partch said:
To be fair, I think M43 is undervalued for distance work: the tele lenses are excellent by any standards, and at those focal lengths the weight and size savings are significant. AF is good enough for BIF and running chickens. Enough said. But for portraits, even the best lenses are no better than standard FF optics, and wide-angle options are still imperfect: as I said, flare seems to be an insuperable problem for complex little lenses.
Click to expand...
The 12mm is known for flare, but others are well controlled. The 12-40mm handles flare well from my experience, and from all reviews I’ve seen. Again the 9-18mm was surprisingly good, especially considering that it’s a ‘mid range’ lens. I’ve had worse flare from some Nikon FF wide angle lenses.

With regards to your comment about their best lenses not being better to standard full frame lenses, what do you mean by standard FF lenses, kit lenses?

M4/3 have some very sharp portrait lenses, for example the 75mm f1.8 is very highly regarded. A favourite of mine is the Panasonic Leica 42.5mm, nice and sharp and has lovely rendering with nice pop.
 
to me most of the complaints about the lenses sounds as if the OP is buying used versions and then complaining they have issues. Plenty of respected photographers using M43 with out complaint
 
I have had and used all makes of cameras and the one system that I have constantly used is M43. My 1st M43 camera was the Panasonic GF1 which is IMHO still a great camera and now so cheap. I love value for money and the M43 system gives this in spades. Size and weight is an issue for me as I don’t like large heavy cameras/lenses and although I have big hands I have never had a problem with how these cameras feel. The image quality is fantastic if the ISO is kept low but saying that new M43 cameras do a great job in low light. One reason I like M43 is that the images have a slight film look which is great as I love film.
My current (and only) M43 camera is the Panasonic LX100 MkII. I had the MkI and it stood up well to full frame cameras. I keep looking back at my LX100 images and and constantly pleased with the results. One thing to remember is that ‘most’ people these days look at photos on their phones or other smaller devices and this is getting more and more the case. For example I post images to Flickr, Facebook and instergram. Most images I look at on my iPad or phone so images are going to look good when looked at at a smaller size. You don’t see the imperfections or noise so much on small screens. Again as someone else has said, it’s horses for courses. Personally I think M43 is a great system. Not for everyone but good for those it suits.
 
AndyWest said:
I have had and used all makes of cameras and the one system that I have constantly used is M43. My 1st M43 camera was the Panasonic GF1 which is IMHO still a great camera and now so cheap. I love value for money and the M43 system gives this in spades. Size and weight is an issue for me as I don’t like large heavy cameras/lenses and although I have big hands I have never had a problem with how these cameras feel. The image quality is fantastic if the ISO is kept low but saying that new M43 cameras do a great job in low light. One reason I like M43 is that the images have a slight film look which is great as I love film.
My current (and only) M43 camera is the Panasonic LX100 MkII. I had the MkI and it stood up well to full frame cameras. I keep looking back at my LX100 images and and constantly pleased with the results. One thing to remember is that ‘most’ people these days look at photos on their phones or other smaller devices and this is getting more and more the case. For example I post images to Flickr, Facebook and instergram. Most images I look at on my iPad or phone so images are going to look good when looked at at a smaller size. You don’t see the imperfections or noise so much on small screens. Again as someone else has said, it’s horses for courses. Personally I think M43 is a great system. Not for everyone but good for those it suits.
Click to expand...
I believe the 'film look' is down to the profiles used rather than the format itself (not saying that you were implying that btw), there's no reason why one bayer sensor would have more of a film look that any other (y)
 
I always like the look I got from my G1 and I always shoot raw. The G1 seemed to give a very natural look to me.
 
AndyWest said:
I have had and used all makes of cameras and the one system that I have constantly used is M43. My 1st M43 camera was the Panasonic GF1 which is IMHO still a great camera and now so cheap. I love value for money and the M43 system gives this in spades. Size and weight is an issue for me as I don’t like large heavy cameras/lenses and although I have big hands I have never had a problem with how these cameras feel. The image quality is fantastic if the ISO is kept low but saying that new M43 cameras do a great job in low light. One reason I like M43 is that the images have a slight film look which is great as I love film.
My current (and only) M43 camera is the Panasonic LX100 MkII. I had the MkI and it stood up well to full frame cameras. I keep looking back at my LX100 images and and constantly pleased with the results. One thing to remember is that ‘most’ people these days look at photos on their phones or other smaller devices and this is getting more and more the case. For example I post images to Flickr, Facebook and instergram. Most images I look at on my iPad or phone so images are going to look good when looked at at a smaller size. You don’t see the imperfections or noise so much on small screens. Again as someone else has said, it’s horses for courses. Personally I think M43 is a great system. Not for everyone but good for those it suits.
Click to expand...
 
Hi Andy,

Sorry for this unassociated contact, did you build a red MK Indy as show in some of your photos?

Best regards

Darryl
 
woof woof said:
I always like the look I got from my G1 and I always shoot raw. The G1 seemed to give a very natural look to me.
Click to expand...
But if you were shooting raw surely the final result was dependent on the processing software that you used, and had nothing to do with the camera?
 
Brian G said:
But if you were shooting raw surely the final result was dependent on the processing software that you used, and had nothing to do with the camera?
Click to expand...

If you use the camera profiles in LR then you are just re-adding what the camera would have only you have more control. I find RAW files from Fuji look very different to RAWs I shot with Panasonic, even before any profile addition.
 
Cagey75 said:
If you use the camera profiles in LR then you are just re-adding what the camera would have only you have more control. I find RAW files from Fuji look very different to RAWs I shot with Panasonic, even before any profile addition.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
The result is down to the processing, not the camera.
 
MFT has allowed me to have a great lens collection for a fraction of the price of FF equivalents - my Sony A7 was amazing but I kept balking at longer lens prices, eventually gave up. However, I do like that wider angle thin DOF look, no matter how I try and convince myself I don’t. The iPhone does an incredible approximation with its portrait computation, and it’s almost good enough. Flipping the DOF argument as Alan says, one underrated thing about MFT is the ability to use the wider aperture light but still getting the smaller aperture‘s DOF - a very useful feature when the light drops down or indoors, or for macro etc. .

If I were totally honest with myself, I’d appraise my current kit like this: I’m really happy with the 200/2.8 as the perfect UK wildlife lens [eight months a year even f/4 is too slow in British woodland, IMO, in FF terms I’d always have picked a 400/2.8 over a 600/4] and the 100-300 is the perfect travel ultrazoom/zoo lens [got some cracking shots of woodpeckers in Florida just before lockdown, where I wouldn’t have travelled with the bigger prime]. The 12-60 [not the 2.8-4, the cheaper one] is an excellent all-rounder, and the 7-14 is brilliantly creative and super sharp from f/4. Since the iPhone 11 though, I’ve not used it so much - the iPhone has a 13mm wide angle... time will tell whether I keep or sell the 7-14 as a result.

Camera-wise, I like the G80 but don’t love it - it’s very competent but a little soulless. [Mini-rant: I just can’t abide the ethos of providing so many different ways to get a similar endpoint, why separate out all the myriad AF options for example?] I actually prefer the simpler G5 which my wife uses as a companion camera [usefully, it shares batteries with the G80], it feels slicker. I do like the G90, prefer it to the G9 from my shop musings, again it feels slightly less bloated. Come the time, I’d be considering a G90 or even an EM1.2 for the CDAF for wildlife, but the battery sharing is one of those little useful things that ties the kit together.

What’s missing for me is that Bokehlicious 35mm equivalent. I figure I can do one of two things - either look at the Olympus 17/f1/2 or Panny 12/1.4 - or for similar money, repurchase the A7/Samyang 35mm combo or look at a Fuji X100.
 
Brian G said:
But if you were shooting raw surely the final result was dependent on the processing software that you used, and had nothing to do with the camera?
Click to expand...

I can only speak as I find :D

I expect it was a product and combination of the sensor and noise performance and whatever was done in camera to produce the raw.

Brian G said:
Exactly.
The result is down to the processing, not the camera.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's 100% the case and in fact I'd go as far as to say you're wrong as even when shooting raw you still start with what the camera gives you. At ISO 100-400 I really liked the GF1/G1 files. At any ISO I don't suppose these cameras can really stand up to modern kit today but at lower ISO's I really liked the character.

I don't think it's true that if you shoot raw it doesn't matter what the camera is. I think they do have their own look, some of them at least, remember that many use the same sensor. These days there are people who rave over the character of the 20mp Sony MFT sensors.
 
Last edited:
danbroad said:
MFT has allowed me to have a great lens collection for a fraction of the price of FF equivalents - my Sony A7 was amazing but I kept balking at longer lens prices, eventually gave up. However, I do like that wider angle thin DOF look, no matter how I try and convince myself I don’t. The iPhone does an incredible approximation with its portrait computation, and it’s almost good enough. Flipping the DOF argument as Alan says, one underrated thing about MFT is the ability to use the wider aperture light but still getting the smaller aperture‘s DOF - a very useful feature when the light drops down or indoors, or for macro etc. .

If I were totally honest with myself, I’d appraise my current kit like this: I’m really happy with the 200/2.8 as the perfect UK wildlife lens [eight months a year even f/4 is too slow in British woodland, IMO, in FF terms I’d always have picked a 400/2.8 over a 600/4] and the 100-300 is the perfect travel ultrazoom/zoo lens [got some cracking shots of woodpeckers in Florida just before lockdown, where I wouldn’t have travelled with the bigger prime]. The 12-60 [not the 2.8-4, the cheaper one] is an excellent all-rounder, and the 7-14 is brilliantly creative and super sharp from f/4. Since the iPhone 11 though, I’ve not used it so much - the iPhone has a 13mm wide angle... time will tell whether I keep or sell the 7-14 as a result.

Camera-wise, I like the G80 but don’t love it - it’s very competent but a little soulless. [Mini-rant: I just can’t abide the ethos of providing so many different ways to get a similar endpoint, why separate out all the myriad AF options for example?] I actually prefer the simpler G5 which my wife uses as a companion camera [usefully, it shares batteries with the G80], it feels slicker. I do like the G90, prefer it to the G9 from my shop musings, again it feels slightly less bloated. Come the time, I’d be considering a G90 or even an EM1.2 for the CDAF for wildlife, but the battery sharing is one of those little useful things that ties the kit together.

What’s missing for me is that Bokehlicious 35mm equivalent. I figure I can do one of two things - either look at the Olympus 17/f1/2 or Panny 12/1.4 - or for similar money, repurchase the A7/Samyang 35mm combo or look at a Fuji X100.
Click to expand...

I have the G80 and G90, the latter does have some very useful additions like the three buttons for wb, iso, exp comp, and sooc jpegs have nicer colours.
Not so keen on the grip, doesn't feel as solid, eyepiece isn't as sturdy either, G80 had probably the best one ever.
No mains charger supplied, but does come with a usb powered one and can be charged in body
Very nice companion to my GX9, no regrets despite some saying it wasn't enough of an improvement on the G80
Tried to like the G9, just found it too big and heavy and the G90 was much more suited to my mainly travel photography :(
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I can only speak as I find :D

I expect it was a product and combination of the sensor and noise performance and whatever was done in camera to produce the raw.



I don't think that's 100% the case and in fact I'd go as far as to say you're wrong as even when shooting raw you still start with what the camera gives you. At ISO 100-400 I really liked the GF1/G1 files. At any ISO I don't suppose these cameras can really stand up to modern kit today but at lower ISO's I really liked the character.

I don't think it's true that if you shoot raw it doesn't matter what the camera is. I think they do have their own look, some of them at least, remember that many use the same sensor. These days there are people who rave over the character of the 20mp Sony MFT sensors.
Click to expand...

I did have the GX9, which had the improved 20 mp sensor, and I must say I noticed improvement on that, over the older 16mp one in the G85. But I have now got a Kodak S1 with the same 16mp sensor and am very happy on the occasion that I use it; Tricky, I do think overall we worry too much about the extra details sometimes. I do consider going back to basics sometimes, getting rid of the RP etc and starting back with the Rebel XTi I still have; then when I get. amount I really miss all the extra tech, then upgrade again. Almost feel a bit spoilt right now!
 
woof woof said:
I can only speak as I find :D

I expect it was a product and combination of the sensor and noise performance and whatever was done in camera to produce the raw.



I don't think that's 100% the case and in fact I'd go as far as to say you're wrong as even when shooting raw you still start with what the camera gives you. At ISO 100-400 I really liked the GF1/G1 files. At any ISO I don't suppose these cameras can really stand up to modern kit today but at lower ISO's I really liked the character.

I don't think it's true that if you shoot raw it doesn't matter what the camera is. I think they do have their own look, some of them at least, remember that many use the same sensor. These days there are people who rave over the character of the 20mp Sony MFT sensors.
Click to expand...
No matter what the "look" of the camera, I would still contend that shooting raw, the final result is dependent on the software and the person operating it.
 
Brian G said:
No matter what the "look" of the camera, I would still contend that shooting raw, the final result is dependent on the software and the person operating it.
Click to expand...
The processor in the camera which sits between the camera sensor and the memory card gives its own interpretation of, amongst other things, the exact shade of a colour. This processor usually changes from generation to generation of the same make of camera and exactly what and how it does it is set by the camera manufacturer’s software engineers.
 
Brian G said:
No matter what the "look" of the camera, I would still contend that shooting raw, the final result is dependent on the software and the person operating it.
Click to expand...
I would say 'can be dependent' tbh. As Stephen said the cameras have processors which take in the data from the sensor and process it to be written onto the card. Each manufacturers does this slightly differently, and also differently from generation to generation. As a result files have a specific colour, therefore Canon reds look different to Nikon reds, which look different to Sony files etc. With a lot of faff in processing you can get Nikon files to resemble Canon ones but it's very hard to get it exact, and it's very hard to get it consistent across all files.
 
Brian G said:
No matter what the "look" of the camera, I would still contend that shooting raw, the final result is dependent on the software and the person operating it.
Click to expand...

So the sensor, the processor and the in camera things that need to be done to produce the raw file have no effect what so ever?

Come off it...
 
woof woof said:
So the sensor, the processor and the in camera things that need to be done to produce the raw file have no effect what so ever?

Come off it...
Click to expand...
Not what I said at all.
I said "the final result is dependent on the software and the person operating it." (My emphasis.)
The developer software is merely an interface between the camera and the photographer, and each individual will adjust the result to suit the way they want it.
A photographer will always process a raw file to produce the result that they want to see, which is rarely the same as an Out Of Camera image file, whether it be raw or jpeg.
 
But you did appear to question my assertion that the G1 gave a look I like to raw files. I think cameras certainly do and for easy to see reasons.

I'm not the only one who sees a look. Google and I'm pretty sure you'll find others talking about various cameras in the same way but of course we could all be wrong.
 
woof woof said:
But you did appear to question my assertion that the G1 gave a look I like to raw files. I think cameras certainly do and for easy to see reasons.

I'm not the only one who sees a look. Google and I'm pretty sure you'll find others talking about various cameras in the same way but of course we could all be wrong.
Click to expand...
I'm not really concerned with how other people find the "look" of their images - the only thing that matters to me is how my images look.
 
Brian G said:
I'm not really concerned with how other people find the "look" of their images - the only thing that matters to me is how my images look.
Click to expand...

Brian, it's clear to me that debating this with you is now pointless.

I stated an opinion which you appeared to disagree with and I then wasted my time replying to you and now your position is that you're not concerned with how other people find the "look."

Thanks for wasting several minutes of my life :D

Have a nice day :D
 
Last edited:
I'm exclusively an m4/3 user. For the usual reasons.

Personally I think the system is at its best with the smaller bodies and small prime/zoom lenses, not that there is much wrong with many of the high end bodies, zooms and primes but cost and size wise they do start to overlap with other formats so it starts to ask more questions of the system.

The 75mm 1.8 is my favourite m4/3 lens but suffers badly from CA if shot into the light. You get used to what works and what doesn't and the images when it works are sublime. It's actually one of my favourite lenses on any system even though I'm not a portrait shooter. It just has a 'look' and beautiful fall off.

I had a 12mm 1.4 for a while and didn't really have any issues at all with flare or softness. I thought it was really nice but a hard one for me to justify owning.

Two others lenses worth a mention for their tiny size but stellar performance are the 45mm 1.8 and 14mm 2.5, You could fit both in a pocket and not notice they're there and can probably pick both up for not much more than £200. It's this sort of thing that makes the system great. You could could be an E-M10 and those to lenses for about £300 and have a fantastic little set up.

My only real grumbles with the system:

If you're used to the breadth of data in a modern full frame file, you soon see that things can fall apart far quicker on an m4/3 file when you need to pull things around so technique is more important on difficult exposures. It can never match ultimate resolution either but most of the time that's a theoretical limitation rather than a real one.

I'd like a really good fast wide lens for astro. a 10mm 1.2 or similar. Closest is the Voigtlander but it doesn't really work for astro.

The greater DOF, although oftern useful is sometimes limiting on wider lenses. I absolutely love the look of environmental portraits shot with a 28/35mm 1.4 on full frame. That lovely throwing of the background. It's very hard to get that on m4/3 though one day I might try a Sigma 16mm 1.4 or Olympus 17mm 1.2. Both are big though.

Much as I enjoy using Olympus cameras, I sometimes think they are too customisable... Panasonic bodies are far more user friendly and often have better EVF's but none have phase detect and I find that a problem. Take the best features of both and you'd have some wonderful cameras.
 
The Sigma looks interesting, agree. I think MFT real strengths lie at the telephoto end, gifting big primes and zooms to the everyman, but the system offers excellent optics at every focal length... if I could just only find that elusive 'fast 24 on FF' environmental portrait look. Steve Huff and Ming Thein coax some lovely stuff out of the lenses, so it's quite possible.
 
snerkler said:
I believe the 'film look' is down to the profiles used rather than the format itself (not saying that you were implying that btw), there's no reason why one bayer sensor would have more of a film look that any other (y)
Click to expand...
I think it’s combo of colour profiles and poor low light noise on older models, also the 4/3 shape is similar to 6x7 medium format film images.
 
gad-westy said:
I'm exclusively an m4/3 user. For the usual reasons.

Personally I think the system is at its best with the smaller bodies and small prime/zoom lenses, not that there is much wrong with many of the high end bodies, zooms and primes but cost and size wise they do start to overlap with other formats so it starts to ask more questions of the system.

The 75mm 1.8 is my favourite m4/3 lens but suffers badly from CA if shot into the light. You get used to what works and what doesn't and the images when it works are sublime. It's actually one of my favourite lenses on any system even though I'm not a portrait shooter. It just has a 'look' and beautiful fall off.

I had a 12mm 1.4 for a while and didn't really have any issues at all with flare or softness. I thought it was really nice but a hard one for me to justify owning.

Two others lenses worth a mention for their tiny size but stellar performance are the 45mm 1.8 and 14mm 2.5, You could fit both in a pocket and not notice they're there and can probably pick both up for not much more than £200. It's this sort of thing that makes the system great. You could could be an E-M10 and those to lenses for about £300 and have a fantastic little set up.

My only real grumbles with the system:

If you're used to the breadth of data in a modern full frame file, you soon see that things can fall apart far quicker on an m4/3 file when you need to pull things around so technique is more important on difficult exposures. It can never match ultimate resolution either but most of the time that's a theoretical limitation rather than a real one.

I'd like a really good fast wide lens for astro. a 10mm 1.2 or similar. Closest is the Voigtlander but it doesn't really work for astro.

The greater DOF, although oftern useful is sometimes limiting on wider lenses. I absolutely love the look of environmental portraits shot with a 28/35mm 1.4 on full frame. That lovely throwing of the background. It's very hard to get that on m4/3 though one day I might try a Sigma 16mm 1.4 or Olympus 17mm 1.2. Both are big though.

Much as I enjoy using Olympus cameras, I sometimes think they are too customisable... Panasonic bodies are far more user friendly and often have better EVF's but none have phase detect and I find that a problem. Take the best features of both and you'd have some wonderful cameras.
Click to expand...

Yes.
M43's central weakness is its central strength: size.
Pretty good, very small lenses are great when cheap, but if you need to up the ante, you hit sky-high prices and concrete limitations.
For me, the reputation M43 lenses have for quality is overdone, but the utility of the system for wildlife and long-range action is under-rated.
And we definitely need better and/or faster wide primes.
It bugs me when people complain about the size of M43 glass though: every single lens in tiny; many are too small to function properly in the hands of adult humans.
No doubt the next gen Lumix AF will be phase detect or dual pixel, but to be fair the G9 is overlooked as a high-speed shooter: its AF is extremely competent: it just needs better continuous AF for video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top