Lacking inspiration considering an M4/3?

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...

Yes i'm another i sold my nex last week.
 
arad85 said:
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 ;)
Click to expand...

Think we are going round in circles now :)

Yes, the body is larger but only marginally when compared to a CSC with a viewfinder built in.
I would be surprised if anyone actually found any real world difference between holding and carrying around a G5 or an 1100D. Smaller size is only a benefit if it is much smaller and negates the need for a seperate bag, if a specific bag is required to carry the camera I really can't see what difference a 10mm larger body will make...
 
ernesto said:
Smaller size is only a benefit if it is much smaller and negates the need for a seperate bag, if a specific bag is required to carry the camera I really can't see what difference a 10mm larger body will make...
Click to expand...

If you think like that the only choice that isn't an SLR will be an IXUS or similar and then you really do have a decision to make on useability, handling and image quality.

Back in my days of using film I didn't have a camera that'd fit in a trouser pocket. The MFT cameras I've had are about the same bulk as a quality non SLR film camera but heavier, less heavy and less bulky than any DSLR I've owned though and the savings make it worthwhile for me to run two systems (not counting compacts.) When I take a MFT out I mostly use a bag just like when I took a 35mm film camera out. The only difference is in winter when I'm wearing a large jacket and then I can fit both a G1 and LX5 in the pockets.
 
ernesto said:
Think we are going round in circles now
Click to expand...
No... you're trying to prove something that isn't true ;) I can always pull you up on it - primarily because the lenses are smaller, but if you want to go to extremes, both the lenses and camera are smaller. I can fit the GX1 and pancake lens in a (large) pocket if I need to. I'd like to see you do that with a DSLR with pancake attached....

ernesto said:
I would be surprised if anyone actually found any real world difference between holding and carrying around a G5 or an 1100D.
Click to expand...
Me.

I have my CSCs on wrist straps as they are small enough to do that with - even with a 14-42 on. A small DSLR with an 18-55 is just that little bit too big & heavy to do that with IMHO so requires a neck strap or shoulder strap.

On another note, the 1100D also has a tiny viewfinder so I couldn't reliably do manual focus (I have a couple of MF lenses which I often stroll around with).
 
arad85 said:
I have my CSCs on wrist straps as they are small enough to do that with - even with a 14-42 on. A small DSLR with an 18-55 is just that little bit too big & heavy to do that with IMHO so requires a neck strap or shoulder strap.
Click to expand...

I have a few wrist straps but I don't have one fitted to my G1. When I'm out I find that I can comfortably carry my G1 and 20, 25 or 55mm attached by just the grip. The bag therefore stays over my shoulder and contains the lens cap, a couple of ND's and a cloth. The camera only goes back in the bag if I want to climb over something or if I'm not going to take any pictures for a few minutes.
 
ernesto said:
Think we are going round in circles now :)

Yes, the body is larger but only marginally when compared to a CSC with a viewfinder built in.
I would be surprised if anyone actually found any real world difference between holding and carrying around a G5 or an 1100D. Smaller size is only a benefit if it is much smaller and negates the need for a seperate bag, if a specific bag is required to carry the camera I really can't see what difference a 10mm larger body will make...
Click to expand...
I have to agree they are jacket pocket-able maybe not really pocket sized and in light of the rx100 which will be the first of many compacts with this sensor which performs as well as many CSC's i didn't see the point in having an nex with two pancakes anymore. If i didn't have an slr it maybe different i would consider a nex-7 (i would not consider a m4/3 at this stage) but as a 2nd camera it really needs to be compact.
 
Last edited:
arad85 said:
No... you're trying to prove something that isn't true ;) I can always pull you up on it - primarily because the lenses are smaller, but if you want to go to extremes, both the lenses and camera are smaller. I can fit the GX1 and pancake lens in a (large) pocket if I need to. I'd like to see you do that with a DSLR with pancake attached....

Me.

I have my CSCs on wrist straps as they are small enough to do that with - even with a 14-42 on. A small DSLR with an 18-55 is just that little bit too big & heavy to do that with IMHO so requires a neck strap or shoulder strap.

On another note, the 1100D also has a tiny viewfinder so I couldn't reliably do manual focus (I have a couple of MF lenses which I often stroll around with).
Click to expand...

Apples to apples please. The GX1 is not a G5 or the like is it, where is the viewfinder?
I carry around my 1100D on a wrist strap, a compact camera wrist strap at that. It weighs around 600 grams and I can comfortably carry it in my hand for hours. The main reason for this is because it is larger and has a decent size grip so it just rests in my fingers.
I find the viewfinder great on the 1100D for me.

And even on wrist straps, you are still carrying them which is my point. Carrying a camera that is a few % larger and heavier really makes no difference to me. It will never fit in my pocket so I am carrying it whatever way you look at it.

Not saying this applies to everyone, but just trying to point out that firstly a DSLR doesn't have to be big and heavy and secondly a CSC may not be much easier to carry around as a small bag is required for either of them.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
If you think like that the only choice that isn't an SLR will be an IXUS or similar and then you really do have a decision to make on useability, handling and image quality.
Click to expand...

I have made my decision on useability, handling and image quality. That is why I use a lightweight DSLR. I would also use something like a G5 quite happily as I have nothing against m4/3, but again, I would not choose one for the sake of the marginal weight and size differences and in fact the slightly smaller form is a negative for handling as my hand doesn't fit on the grip properly.
 
ernesto said:
And even on wrist straps, you are still carrying them which is my point. Carrying a camera that is a few % larger and heavier really makes no difference to me.
Click to expand...
Where does a few % turn into something more substantial? Taking the body alone:

camerasize.com said:
Canon EOS Rebel T3 is 8% (10 mm) wider and 20% (16.5 mm) taller than Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5.
Canon EOS Rebel T3 is 10% (7.1 mm) thicker than Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5. (this excludes the prism hump of the 1100D)
Canon EOS Rebel T3 [495 g] weights 25% (99 grams) more than Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 [396 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).
Click to expand...
add the standard lens in and it becomes even larger. Put something like a 70-200f4 zoom on (same equivalent focal length as the upcoming 35-100 power zoom) and the balance is way in the favour of the u4/3. In fact, anything outside the kit lens or specialist pancake lens (singular) for Canon tips the scales heavily towards u4/3 being far more compact.

In fact, I could go out with a winter coat on (which would be OK most days in the UK :D) and have a camera together with 2 or 3 lenses covering from 15mm-200mm full frame equivalent sitting in the coat pockets.

As to picture quality... I don't think there is that much in it between u4/3 and 1.6 crop. Yes, the crop factor is larger (2 vs 1.6), but the fact that you have a different aspect ratio means that if you don't crop and print, the picture quality will be pretty much identical, albeit at a different aspect. In fact, the aspect (which is squarer for u4/3) helps keep size down - for a given sensor area, you have a narrower image circle which leads to smaller lenses.
 
A few % turns into something more substantial when it is more than a few %. The amount of % is up to the user. For me, 10mm wider and 16mm higher makes no difference at all, and neither does the 100grams. However, add 100% in weight for a higher end DSLR and the difference starts to come in.

All I am trying to portray here is that having something like a G5 doesn't mean you suddenly feel like you are not carrying a camera with you, need a bag around your shoulder etc,. so I cannot see why it would inspire more shots, more use of the camera.
I have gone through the whole small enough to fit in the pocket and it inspired me less as I didn't enjoy using the cameras. They are too small and without a viewfinder feel like using a phone and with a viewfinder not noticeably smaller or lighter (or not enough to make any difference).

This is clearly personal opinion but an opinion nonetheless and one that is based on using all sizes of cameras going!

And I think you must have a bought a shoplifters coat by the sound of it :)
 
That's great, I am happy for you walking around in your big coat all year around and the mass of inspiration that comes with using a camera that is 10mm smaller :)
 
ernesto said:
That's great, I am happy for you walking around in your big coat all year around and the mass of inspiration that comes with using a camera that is 10mm smaller :)
Click to expand...

Is the point of the discussion now to be ridiculous?

A MFT body and small lens, like the 20mm f1.7, will for sure fit into a winter jacket pocket, easily. I have more clothes than many men, so my GF says... but the two winter coats I use most (one being a Regatta "Great Outdoors" thing and the other being a padded M&S thing) will both easily take my G1+20mm f1.7.

A summer jacket wont, no, but may take something smaller than a GF1+pancake lens (I'm not up on the model numbers but I do know that some Panny MFT bodies are smaller than a GF1.)
 
I was joking. Although has a serious point to it in what would you do in the summer when using a Gn camera with any lens?
You would presumably put it in a bag the same sort of size as a small DSLR, which again is the point I am making here. What difference does it make which camera is in the bag, you are carrying a bag either way (10mm or 100g here or there really doesn't matter)
 
woof woof said:
A MFT body and small lens, like the 20mm f1.7, will for sure fit into a winter jacket pocket, easily.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ....

I'm sat here with a Lowe Alpine waterproof jacket on with a G3/summilux 25mm in one pocket and a GX1/14-42 in the other.

I can even do the jacket up - which is a surprise given the weight I've put on since I've bought it :( ;)
 
ernesto said:
What difference does it make which camera is in the bag, you are carrying a bag either way (10mm or 100g here or there really doesn't matter)
Click to expand...
Because not everyone just uses the kit lens.

Quality lenses are becoming available for u4/3 and whilst they are expensive, they are nowhere near the size of the quality lenses for DSLRs that cover the same focal range. I can fit all 5 of my u4/3 lens in less space than I can fit my 70-200F4. They certainly weigh less...
 
Last edited:
You guys and your big jackets eh? I guess my penchant for slim fit clothes is one of the areas I am going wrong here. No need to point out the other areas please.

Remember I also live in the South so only tend to wear a jacket for two months of the year...
 
arad85 said:
Because not everyone just uses the kit lens.

Quality lenses are becoming available for u4/3 and whilst they are expensive, they are nowhere near the size of the quality lenses for DSLRs that cover the same focal range. I can fit all 5 of my u4/3 lens in less space than I can fit my 70-200F4. They certainly weigh less...
Click to expand...

I do get what you are saying and yes the like lenses for m4/3 are lighter and smaller than the equivalent for SLR. What I am failing to get across is that a smaller DSLR solution can also be obtained (I have one myself) and while it works well for me I concede that it may not work for all (i.e. those who want large zooms, collection of lenses with them)

I was just putting it out there as a possible option, so please take is as that - an option :)
 
ernesto said:
You guys and your big jackets eh? I guess my penchant for slim fit clothes is one of the areas I am going wrong here. No need to point out the other areas please.
Click to expand...
I'm 6'8" and 23 stone... I don't do slim fit (although the jacket I bought when I weighed 16 stone so...) ;) :D
 
You could probably fit me in one of your pockets by the sound of it!
 
Well the important thing is that mrhoddy now knows exactly what to do, doesn't he? ;)
 
Good we are all happy and still getting along :)

You lot are still wrong though :D
 
Obviously I'm sure your all dying to know what im doing - what with all the conversation on here about size an all :lol:

Anyway managed to bag an Olympus E-PL2 with kit lens for not a bad price and I will see how it goes and if I can get used to the m43 camera stylee - yes I know I said I couldn't live without VF but the plan is to maybe upgrade in a few months and give her indoors this to use - Im loving the OMD ive got to say as had a go on one and it felt nice, took me back to school using a OM10!!

First impressions, size = good, change to buttons and single dial = tricky and possibly going to be frustrating (whats that, upgrade time, what already!!!) kit lens is a kit lens, IQ seems pretty good - Ive got to be honest I reckon it could give the 40d a run for its money in terms of IQ

One thing is for sure I dont think im going to feel as much as a lugger with the m43 system and Id be happy to carry it around pretty much everywhere which is not to be said for me and the 40d.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top