Lacking inspiration considering an M4/3?

M

mrhoddy

Messages
87
Edit My Images
Yes
Just returned from holiday obviously feeling the blues but also feel like it was a trip where I was lacking inspiration.

Maybe just a phase, but thinking about it, I'm questioning whether some part is down to having to juggle the 40d and two small children - that constant lug everything feeling and the be careful not to smack the lens with the kids etc etc etc.

All this has made me contemplate selling up going for something like a Panasonic GX1 or the OMD etc anyway m43 so gaining the more compact aspect which I feel would be easier to juggle!

Not a magic bullet by any means but it might mean I have the camera out more - in terms of lens I have already, your talking a 10-22 which I love and use a lot, a cheeky nifty fifty which I use with the kids and then the 28-135 which I only use occasionally

Unsure have read lots of threads, anyone currently in or have been in a similar position?
 
I haven't really taken the 5D2 out since I got my G3 - which is silly given how much I have tied up in the L lenses there. On holiday a couple of weeks ago the G3 was easy to get into the hand luggage (we flew Ryanair and took ONLY handluggage) and I used the G3 and 7.5mm fisheye, 28mm and 50mm Olympus OM manual focus lenses almost exclusively. I've just ordered a 25mm f1.4 and I'm seriously tempted by the G5.

My thoughts are that I couldn't do without the EVF - whilst the GX1 is the better handling and feeling camera of the two u4/3 cameras I have, it is difficult to use in bright light without an EVF. It's also difficult to use as my arms get shorter as I get older ;)
 
I agree with the above about EVF's.

I had a GF1 and I loved the size and weight but after the honeymoon period ended I decided that I just didn't enjoy shooting with the rear screen at arm/half arm length. I'm much happier with a G1 now and the articulated screen comes in handy too.

Some don't think that there's much bulk/weight saving with MFT but personally I think that you need to physically hold both MFT+lens and DSLR+lens to appreciate that MFT+lens is much less bulky and much lighter.

There's a size comparison video at the bottom of the page here...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/panasonic-g1.shtml

And you can look at dimensions here...

http://camerasize.com/compare/
 
arad85 said:
My thoughts are that I couldn't do without the EVF - whilst the GX1 is the better handling and feeling camera of the two u4/3 cameras I have, it is difficult to use in bright light without an EVF. It's also difficult to use as my arms get shorter as I get older ;)
Click to expand...

Yes totally agree and something I hadnt mentioned, did not like the idea of no EVF and so would also need to factor in cost if I went for a GX1

Have you found that you have (after the honeymoon period) / will get out more given the reduced lugging with yours then?

As I said im looking for it to get me out more and re-ignite what is missing at the moment but it may not obviously be the cure
 
I realise also that the price difference between the two are significant so am leaning towards the cheaper GX1 in order to spend a little more on lenses but in essence could do the OM as would be selling the kit I have to fund anyway
 
mrhoddy said:
Have you found that you have (after the honeymoon period) / will get out more given the reduced lugging with yours then?
Click to expand...
Yes - I went for a walk this afternoon and took the G3 - just very easy to sling over my shoulder. I also tend to limit myself to two focal lengths as I'm moving more to shooting primes. Today it was manual with 50mm and 28mm.

Also, the cost of "decent" lenses is much lower with u4/3 - less sensor means cheaper lenses.

You may want to consider the G5 if you want to always shoot with the EVF. Some nice tweaks to the UI and looks to be easier to alter settings (assuming you want that sort of control).
 
woof woof said:
And you can look at dimensions here...

http://camerasize.com/compare/
Click to expand...

That is a good link Alan. And goes to prove what I have been saying about the 1100D being only marginally (10%) bigger than something like a G5 and only 100 grams heavier too (the D3200 is even closer). Considering the 1100d has a mirror in it that is a good achievement on size and they could probably get it a bit smaller if they wanted to.

Of course we won't mention that the lenses are a bigger on the DSLR :) (although if talking primes the tiny 40mm is the way forward to keep size and weight down down)
 
Last edited:
Having had a couple of Compact System bodies I'd say go for one with an EVF built in if you think you will need one, using the LCD was a bit annoying coming from DSLR's and I've had the addon EVF for the Olympus EP2, excellent add on but quite pricey and annoying to have to keep watching to make sure its not fallen off!!

Its better value to buy a body that already contains the EVF and less hassle as well!
 
ernesto said:
Of course we won't mention that the lenses are a bigger on the DSLR :) (although if talking primes the tiny 40mm is the way forward to keep size and weight down down)
Click to expand...

You have to consider the camera+lens as a package and I don't think the difference really comes across looking at camerasize.com. The Luminous Landscape video is a little more realistic but to truly appreciate the difference I still think that you need to hold the camera+lens combinations in your hand and once you do that IMVHO the reality of the bulk and weight saving CSC's offer becomes apparent.
 
woof woof said:
The Luminous Landscape video is a little more realistic but to truly appreciate the difference I still think that you need to hold the camera+lens combinations in your hand and once you do that IMVHO the reality of the bulk and weight saving CSC's offer becomes apparent.
Click to expand...

Yes obviously, but from a full frontal, at home without having ever looked at any in the flesh its a decent website for a first scope. Also great when doing the option perusing, forum cruising type stuff that normally happens before a purchase :lol:
 
If you are looking for inspiration then, IMVHO, the size of camera will not help you find it.

I'm inspired by what I see and then reach for a camera, 'any' camera, that is at hand.
 
I understand what you are saying, but I feel that I'm at a place where I'm not looking as much because I have to juggle large camera and kids with the other hand - this scenario obviously isn't unique but this regimented approach needed nowadays rather than a carefree approach to kit in and out etc I feel is in someway a factor.

I guess I am expecting that a smaller amount of kit would help to shoot a little more freely - eg I'd be happier with something smaller hanging and swinging round my neck as well as the wee one vs the current larger setup bashing round with the wee one!!
 
Last edited:
Dave in Wales said:
If you are looking for inspiration then, IMVHO, the size of camera will not help you find it.

I'm inspired by what I see and then reach for a camera, 'any' camera, that is at hand.
Click to expand...

But if you haven't taken your kit because it is too cumbersome, then size will have a bearing I guess!
 
woof woof said:
You have to consider the camera+lens as a package and I don't think the difference really comes across looking at camerasize.com. The Luminous Landscape video is a little more realistic but to truly appreciate the difference I still think that you need to hold the camera+lens combinations in your hand and once you do that IMVHO the reality of the bulk and weight saving CSC's offer becomes apparent.
Click to expand...

Agree about size with lenses as I conceded. I have physically looked at these cameras which is why I knew the entry level DSLR are pretty small too. However, for me personally if it is not small enough to fit in my pocket then I am either carrying it in my hand or in a small bag. The slight difference in weight and size make no difference, they still go in a small bag.
The problem is if people want to use a 5D sized camera and carry around 5 big lenses.
I can see the OPs point in that having all the baggage that comes with DSLRs for some people can get off putting and annoying when out and about doing other things, however it doesn't have to be like that if you pick a small DSLR and one small lens. If you had an OM-D and a few lenses it is still going to be a bag to carry around...
 
Yea, using just an LCD can be very annoying especially in bright conditions. I am moving to M4 thirds myself now due to health issues. Was looking at a G2 until I saw the G5. Waiting to see what people think of the G5 first. I am not a fan on evf's but needs must and for me, weight is important.
 
I've read many time now comments such as "I'm not a fan of/I hate EVF's" and it seems... strange to me.

I have a very technical background and maybe because of that or just the way my mind natually works I have a slightly different perspective and an ability to appreciate and visualise that some other people perhaps lack. I could see advantages in EVF's almost as soon as I started to use them and now going back to my 5D seems to be stepping back into a bygone, hampered and almost obsolete age. In all but night time shooting that is. My 5D's OVF's still beats my G1's EVF once human night vision kicks in.

I still think that the DSLR will go the way of the Dinosaur and that EVF's will soon invade the last refuge of OVF's, night time (that is in darkness not just low light) shooting. Maybe some EVF technologies already have but my backlit G1 certainly hasn't.
 
samems said:
Yea, using just an LCD can be very annoying especially in bright conditions.
Click to expand...

This is one of the things putting me off the GX1 as I would need the EVF which is another £200 onto the price - I could never use LCD alone
 
You might miss an SLR more than you think. I tried almost everything but have now concluded that I like an optical viewfinder and instant response.

...the answer was to ditch the heavy gear, stop fooling myself that it takes 'professional' kit to create professional results, and to embrace a D3100. Smaller, lighter, more discreet than even many CSC's, and takes my Nikkor primes. I'm even liking the 18-70 cheapie zoom, too!
 
I like both the EVF and Optical.. As long as there's a viewfinder I'm happy :-) I have 2 Canon DSLR and 2 M43 cameras and tbh the M43 with prime lenses do get far more use there just easy too carry on you all time due too smaller size n weight.

Id be very reluctant too get rid of either format though as they both have there benefits that I'd miss if one went.
 
Last edited:
How about an X100? Both excellent OVF and EVF with a superb lens and sensor. I was concerned at first about the fixed focal length, but now absolutely love it, it means that I have to think harder about composition and move about to find the right image. It's done wonders for my Mojo!!

Aled
 
danbroad said:
You might miss an SLR more than you think. I tried almost everything but have now concluded that I like an optical viewfinder and instant response.

...the answer was to ditch the heavy gear, stop fooling myself that it takes 'professional' kit to create professional results, and to embrace a D3100. Smaller, lighter, more discreet than even many CSC's, and takes my Nikkor primes. I'm even liking the 18-70 cheapie zoom, too!
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends upon the body and lens combo but the fastest interchangeable camera and lens combo you can get these days is CSC so you're kidding yourself if you think that a blanket statement like DSLR's respond faster is true because it isn't, not always and probably not even usually now. The only advantage that DSLR's have speed wise is focus tracking and I expect that CSC's will get there. For non tracking the fastest CSC's are faster than the fastest DSLR's.

Dunno what CSC a D3100 + lens will be smaller and lighter than :thinking:
 
Last edited:
Went down and had a look at some today - G3, nicer than expected and surprised but seemed to lag a little in shutter response compared to the 40d or maybe it was me?

Now unsure of EVF but would be a necessity.

Still also like the GX1 and didnt get to see an OMD as they didnt have one search / consideration continues!
 
No its not you. I found that too. Shutter lag was terrible, as was the af. I have genuinely missed more shots than i kept when i had the g3. Hopeless at an airshow, and with moving birds. I expected too much from it i know. And if i'm honest, picture quality wasn't all that great, when compared to my old 40d (and others). I've sold up again and got a 'proper' dslr.......
 
andy_fozzy said:
No its not you. I found that too. Shutter lag was terrible, as was the af. I have genuinely missed more shots than i kept when i had the g3. Hopeless at an airshow, and with moving birds. I expected too much from it i know. And if i'm honest, picture quality wasn't all that great, when compared to my old 40d (and others). I've sold up again and got a 'proper' dslr.......
Click to expand...

Agree the BIF being issue, but picture quality from my G3 is fantastic (look at my last shot on flickr), I still hate how it handles too
 
Last edited:
I have found the MFT system to be a joy to use and I find the the quality to be absolutely fine for me. Sometimes it is just easier to change systems rather then persevere if the system isn't working for you and I understand it isn't for everyone. I love the MFT system and shan't be looking to go back for a long time yet as I am more than happy with my products that I can produce from it, BIF too. ;) Quality is fine with 16mp MFT cameras, usable up to iso 3200 if exposed correctly I have found.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
woof woof said:
I suppose it depends upon the body and lens combo but the fastest interchangeable camera and lens combo you can get these days is CSC so you're kidding yourself if you think that a blanket statement like DSLR's respond faster is true because it isn't, not always and probably not even usually now. The only advantage that DSLR's have speed wise is focus tracking and I expect that CSC's will get there. For non tracking the fastest CSC's are faster than the fastest DSLR's.

Dunno what CSC a D3100 + lens will be smaller and lighter than :thinking:
Click to expand...

It's different strokes here. Even my Nikon V1, supposedly the fastest of them all, didn't track moving kids as quickly as my D3100 can, and certainly not as fast as the D700 did. Likewise, even though I like EVF's (and the V1 was the best yet I've used, although I admit the Sony A77's is lovely) they gain up at night and the experience isn't quite as 3-dimensional as an optical finder. The gap will close further, I'm sure.

I think you misinterpreted the smaller, lighter part. Regarding discreet, well these days everyone's either holding an iPhone or a base model DSLR (plus kit lens, plus focus beep) it seems. D3100's and their ilk don't stand out anymore in, say, your average family theme park day out. CSC's are more notable because they're not quite so common, at least to this photographer's eye.

Use what you like, like what you use. I liked every CSC system I tried (panasonic, nikon) but in the end each forced a particular compromise that I couldn't quite forgive, no matter how small.
 
danbroad said:
I think you misinterpreted the smaller, lighter part.
Click to expand...
How did he do that? I read it in exactly the same way I think Alan did: you think a D3100 plus lens is smaller and lighter than an equivalent u4/3 system.
 
Then I know for a fact that you misinterpreted it aswell, because that's not how I meant it to read.... How's about this.... Smaller, lighter (than many DSLR's, and than the DSLR I gave up to go CSC), more discreet than some CSC's. Less ambiguous? I had no idea that it was of Internet Importance that I remain factually correct at all times! Don't make the silly mistake of listening to me, I'm just some anonymous internet figure with a camera.....

However, my point stands. I know there are many of us who tried CSC, liked the CSC concept quite a bit, could see how eventually the mirrorless camera would rule, but in the end realised for the time being we preferred our SLR's, just not the big bulky SLR's we left behind.
 
danbroad said:
Less ambiguous?
Click to expand...
Yup, you mean it's smaller & lighter than pro DSLRs. It read like you meant it was smaller than CSCs which had me :thinking: too...

danbroad said:
I had no idea that it was of Internet Importance that I remain factually correct at all times!
Click to expand...
Yes - it is... And don't you forget it! ;) :D
 
danbroad said:
Less ambiguous? I had no idea that it was of Internet Importance that I remain factually correct at all times! Don't make the silly mistake of listening to me, I'm just some anonymous internet figure with a camera.....
Click to expand...

I do use what I want. I have a bag full of nice lenses and a full frame camera but most of the time I use a CSC. I really don't care what other people think and you shouldn't either. It's not about being factually correct, two things matter, the first being that we each pursue the path that we want and the second being that we do so understanding the options.

The point of my post was to provide what I thought was correct information to correct what I saw as a mistaken belief on your part. If you understand and accept that CSC are smaller and lighter than DSLR's and have both advantages and disadvantages v DSLR's then you are armed and able to make informed choices that are right for you :D although I don't see how "Smaller, lighter, more discreet than even many CSC's" is open to misinterpretation, but it really doesn't matter.
 
Last edited:
Oh I almost love but hate thinking about new kit but have continued the quest tonight, now maybe thinking leave idea of OMD for a while and spend money differently:

Get some primes - P14? P25* O45?
Add some filters
go with a second hand body - maybe a GF1 or 2?

Ha ha ha you gotta chuckle (im not sure how long the missus is going to take my what if stuff!!)
 
danbroad said:
However, my point stands. I know there are many of us who tried CSC, liked the CSC concept quite a bit, could see how eventually the mirrorless camera would rule, but in the end realised for the time being we preferred our SLR's, just not the big bulky SLR's we left behind.
Click to expand...

Thought I was the only person who felt this for a minute. I thought and did exactly the same. The better CSCs are matched or bettered by low end DSLRs which happen to be the smaller and lighter models in the DSLR range which mean the difference in size and weight is not as great as assumed.

Using a DSLR does not have to mean a 5D with a 300mm L lens on it, weighing in at 2kg+ and being huge.

I think the smaller SLRs are about as small as they can be without compromising comfort of use, for me.
 
Last edited:
Problem is CSC's are still not quite compact enough so you will find you will still need a bag to lug it around. Why don't you keep your dslr and but a compact with manual controls.
 
ernesto said:
Thought I was the only person who felt this for a minute. I thought and did exactly the same. The better CSCs are matched or bettered by low end DSLRs which happen to be the smaller and lighter models in the DSLR range which mean the difference in size and weight is not as great as assumed.
Click to expand...
It's the lenses that make the difference in size and weight, not the bodies.
 
Just to say I went from through various Canon DSLRs and Lenses over the years before finishing with a 50d and all lenses last year to buy a Panasonic G2, kit lens and 20mm prime. I use it much more now. The OP described me going out with my gear as well. Got to be a hassle. I am really happy with the G2 and m43rds generally.
 
ernesto said:
Sorry, don't know what you are talking about.

(soon to be 40mm pancake user here :) )
Click to expand...
If you're happy with a single pancake lens, then a CSC is still smaller - just now it's the body which comes into play ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top