Mirco 4/3 vs Pro DSLR

EMA747

EMA747

Messages
2,070
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
First off let me say I know there is a big difference between these two types of cameras in certain situations but I am wondering about other more "normal" situations.
I sold a Canon 1DmkIV a few weeks ago and got myself a Panasonic GF2 as a small "holiday" camera because I was in Mallorca last week. Having a first look at the shots from the GF2 today I am quite honestly blown away by the quality of them. Comparing similar landscape/travel type shots with those I still have from the mkIV I can honestly see VERY little difference if any. :eek: Admittedly I didn't take the GF2 out of ISO100.
Just before I went on holiday I was very seriously missing my mkIV and L lenses and thinking hard about getting another straight away but now I am not so sure at all. In fact I'm wondering if I should sell my L lenses and not get another SLR body full stop.

Has anyone else had similar experiences with M4/3 cameras compared to DSLRs?
 
Comparing my old d90 with 35 and 50mm primes against my GF-1 with 20mm and 14mm primes at <= 200 ISO I see no real difference. However > 400 ISO is where the DSLR seems to win out - hence me buying a decent flash gun now!!

The portability of these Micro 4/3 cameras is what is the big draw for me. However there is something about a DSLR I can't really put my finger on...and I will get another as soon as I can, as for some reason I seem to miss it. (Sorry I have no idea why though!)
 
Yeah in most situations where you don't need super fast AF or really high ISOs you wouldn't notice a difference unless you were making huge prints.

There's still not enough lenses available for M4/3 though imo - I can't understand why there isn't a 50mm 1.8/1.4 to go with the excellent 20mm 1.8.
 
EMA747 said:
Has anyone else had similar experiences with M4/3 cameras compared to DSLRs?
Click to expand...

Yes. Since I got my GF1 I've been taking more shots and I decided to "only" take my LX5 and GF1 on holidays with me as I thought I was too much of a geek and paying too little attention to my GF if I took my DSLR. I haven't regretted not taking my DSLR on holiday yet and in fact I've probably taken more shots with the smaller cameras than I would have if I'd taken the DSLR.

Modern cameras and noise reduction packages mean that (for me) I really don't have to worry about higher ISO performance for whole image shots.

Later MFT cameras are probably even better than my GF1, so I think they're easily good enough. My DSLR is now reserved for photography days out.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Yes. Since I got my GF1 I've been taking more shots and I decided to "only" take my LX5 and GF1 on holidays with me as I thought I was too much of a geek and paying too little attention to my GF if I took my DSLR. I haven't regretted not taking my DSLR on holiday yet and in fact I've probably taken more shots with the smaller cameras than I would have if I'd taken the DSLR.

Modern cameras and noise reduction packages mean that (for me) I really don't have to worry about higher ISO performance for whole image shots.

Later MFT cameras are probably even better than my GF1, so I think they're easily good enough. My DSLR is now reserved for photography days out.
Click to expand...

Now I haven't managed to suss out the whole noise reduction thing at all in Aperture 3. Hence me sticking to < 200 (400 at a push) ISO or off camera flash. Do I need to get myself a plug-in, or simply RTFM?
 
Seems like most of the 4/3rd cameras are rather good ;)

I have an Olympus EP1, which is for general walking about, holidays, etc. And I love it!! its a brilliant little camera. Most of the time (general occasions) I leave the DSLR (Nikon D3 or D300) at home in favour of the EP1.

The only time I really wish for the DSLR is dark environments, etc. But generally the DSLR is more for "staged" or very specific shots otherwise I take the EP1.
 
Steelfish said:
Now I haven't managed to suss out the whole noise reduction thing at all in Aperture 3. Hence me sticking to < 200 (400 at a push) ISO or off camera flash. Do I need to get myself a plug-in, or simply RTFM?
Click to expand...

I was using Rawshooter Essentials, Silkipix or CS2. I tried various plug in noise reduction packages including Neat Image and Noiseware but for me CS5 was the answer, although the latest version of Elements did just as good a job of noise reduction as CS5 but I went for CS5 for the other additional things it offers.

I don't worry about ISO now, I just leave my GF1 on auto ISO and whole images are fine for me. No doubt if you pixel peep you'll find fault but I'm happy with the GF1 for whole image shots at any ISO after prosessing.

Here's a whole image shot at 1600 taken at night and a 100% crop from the centre of the frame.

1600-1.jpg


1600-x.jpg


Not perfect, but good enough for a good sized print and more time spent fiddling and sharpening will probably yield better results.
 
Last edited:
Wish I could wrap my head round this one. My spanking new 5D2 and 24-105 sits in the bag while I find myself using my E-P1 + 50mm f1.4 manual focus lens every day. I've only got the E-P1 at all because I was given it for my birthday and now I'm wondering whether to sell up the big boys kit. I'd probably hang on to the 20D for when only an SLR will do.

Btw, I don't do noise reduction very often but when needs must I find the Aperture plug-in Dfine 2.0 from Nik software to do a decent job.
 
paulcamcas said:
Wish I could wrap my head round this one. My spanking new 5D2 and 24-105 sits in the bag while I find myself using my E-P1 + 50mm f1.4 manual focus lens every day. I've only got the E-P1 at all because I was given it for my birthday and now I'm wondering whether to sell up the big boys kit. I'd probably hang on to the 20D for when only an SLR will do.
Click to expand...
I'm in the same boat. I sold the mkIV so now don't have an DSLR body at all so my lenses are worthless at the moment. I don't know if I should sell them and be done with it or get a new DSLR body. One way frees up a load of cash the other uses more. The only problem is I don't know if a few months down the line I would seriously miss an SLR if I sold up. :thinking:

Now if there was an M4/3 camera on a par with the 1DmkIV.......:D
 
If you want to replace a DSLR go GH1/2. GH2 especially suited to AF. Noise is really a non issue, it's no worse on the GH series than the best APS (although my GH1 doesn't like sunsets much, seems to be noisisest then). The dynamic range is also pretty cmparable.

For me the size and weight difference makes much much more sense than any microscopic and barely perceivable theoretical advantage in IQ in going up to an APS DSLR. Obviously there's no competion with full frame, but for that I have film SLRs, which are much smaller than any FF digital offering. (Pentax Super A is slightly smaller than the GH1, but the lenses are huuuuge).
 
I found things the other way round. I couldnt get on with my GF-1 so sold it. Nothing wrong with it, just preferred a DSLR.
 
woof woof said:
I was using Rawshooter Essentials, Silkipix or CS2. I tried various plug in noise reduction packages including Neat Image and Noiseware but for me CS5 was the answer, although the latest version of Elements did just as good a job of noise reduction as CS5 but I went for CS5 for the other additional things it offers.

I don't worry about ISO now, I just leave my GF1 on auto ISO and whole images are fine for me. No doubt if you pixel peep you'll find fault but I'm happy with the GF1 for whole image shots at any ISO after prosessing.

Here's a whole image shot at 1600 taken at night and a 100% crop from the centre of the frame.

Not perfect, but good enough for a good sized print and more time spent fiddling and sharpening will probably yield better results.
Click to expand...

Wow. Thanks very much for the advice and taking the time to back it up with pics. I know what I'll be experimenting with this afternoon now! That ISO 1600 example is ace.
 
The one thing I have found that I don't like with M4/3 compared to DSLR is that the act of taking photos seems a bit "removed" and "amateur" without the viewfinder. Not saying that's a bad thing it just feels to me more like using a point and shoot/happy snaps type camera. This doesn't really matter though if the images produced are good, which they have been so far.
 
I get the impression that the real differences in use are that a good DSLR like a 1D will have better AF and that an FF body will have roughly half the DOF of a micro-4/3rds camera. So for landscape, I see every reason why you'd not see substantial differences.
 
What about the NEX system cameras from Sony? APC-S sensor in a tiny body. OK lens support is not good but hopefully plenty of lenses coming out this and next year.

I have been pretty much blown away by the NEX IQ with old manual lenses.
 
I'm not sure I could give up my optical viewfinder yet. Certainly not until EVFs get much better than they are now, and far bigger. There's also something about holding a lump of metal perfectly sculpted to my hands over a (comparably) tiny bit of plastic where all the buttons are in the wrong place and my fingers fall off the bottom of the grip.

Maybe in five or ten years time EVF cameras will be the norm but there will still be people using DSLRs, in the same way that people still use film now. For me there are far fewer benefits with EVF over SLRs than there are for digital over film so I think DSLRs will be around for a while yet.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
I get the impression that the real differences in use are that a good DSLR like a 1D will have better AF and that an FF body will have roughly half the DOF of a micro-4/3rds camera. So for landscape, I see every reason why you'd not see substantial differences.
Click to expand...

^ this

Unless you're printing really massive, there's no reason a m4/3 can't produce quality easily comparable to heavier DSLR stuff.
 
Nuffles said:
I'm not sure I could give up my optical viewfinder yet. Certainly not until EVFs get much better than they are now, and far bigger. There's also something about holding a lump of metal perfectly sculpted to my hands over a (comparably) tiny bit of plastic where all the buttons are in the wrong place and my fingers fall off the bottom of the grip.

Maybe in five or ten years time EVF cameras will be the norm but there will still be people using DSLRs, in the same way that people still use film now. For me there are far fewer benefits with EVF over SLRs than there are for digital over film so I think DSLRs will be around for a while yet.
Click to expand...

Check this out...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicDMCGH2/page3.asp

"Thanks to its impressive 1.4x magnification the GH2's electronic viewfinder produces a view that gets in terms of dimensions pretty close to a full-frame DSLR and is significantly larger than what you get in a APS-C or Four Thirds DSLR."

So you may see an improvement over your 50D and it's relatively small viewfinder.
 
Last edited:
m43 cameras aren't dslr's and were never meant to be a replacement.
As a general everywhere use type camera m43 are superb, small(ish), good features, good image quality, much better than P & S but not quite as good as the slightly larger sensor DSLR's. For MOST people that doesn't matter, better to have a camera with you tnan non at all, if size is a problem.
It is only when you try and cover the wide range of subject matter with a m43 that you begin to appreciate the DSLR.
Small cameras can be difficult to handle properly, specially if you have a fist full of thumbs.
I have just moved onto a GF1 and love it for what it is, but a DSLR it ain't.
It's certainly a lot more fun to use and should be somewhat more discreet for street photography and areas where a full blown DSLR would get you some funny looks.

The CSC (compact sytem camera) has it's niche between P & S and DSLR, and as such is a sytem in it's own right, the P & S is still more pocketable and the DSLR more versatile overall.
 
Howi said:
The CSC (compact sytem camera) has it's niche between P & S and DSLR, and as such is a sytem in it's own right, the P & S is still more pocketable and the DSLR more versatile overall.
Click to expand...

I think it's a very close run thing in lots of areas Howard. Reading the latest reviews it seems like the GH2 actually beats some APS-C's in many respects including IQ.

If looking at versatility I suppose it depends what factors you give the most weight too but if size, weight and discretion are high on the list then I personally would say that MFT are more versatile than some DSLR's, or possibly more accurately, MFT offer a versatility that DSLR's don't.
 
Very interesting . . . I though it was only me thinking 'out of the box',:) Bought a G1 for my partner, she could not get on with it, she has a disability that creates problem??? So what do I do with the G1 . . . that was almost a year ago.

I'm no (Sir) David Baily . . . only wave a D90 about, but the G1 has become my camera of choice, it fits my type of glorified 'snapshot' photography, I have no aspiration of impressing anyone. I went into a phase of using one lens 28-90mm (film equivalent). The Nikon 18-70 on the 90, the 14-45 with the G1. Over the past 12 months as I say the G1 fits my bill perfectly and has become my 24/7 camera.

I wont part with the D90, I still love it to bits, but as I have used the G1 more and more, I have grown to appreciate its good points and work with its not so good points that for me are becoming very few. If I were to go motor racing or plane spoting, I think the DSLR would be my tool of choice, however as I dont do these, I'm more into boats, flowers, trees and views.

The 'large' EVF on the G1 . . . not perfect but good enough to use for 'manual focus' . . . just! and the animated screen is perfect for difficult angles and using the camera at 'classic' waist height. Both EVF and animated screen are highly information loaded, as one set the shot up in frame, all settings are there to see!!!


Here is a couple of pics I took the other day, very early, in a hurry!!! I was off to a deep-sea fishing trip and had to make the tide . . . so the camera had to do its own thing. All in all, it copped OK, despite my efforts to sabotage it :naughty:

800OrwellSunriseTreesbrakenrwP1010026_edited-1.jpg



1000OrwellSunriseboatsrwP1010029.jpg

(Exif in tact)

Personally, I actually like the second one . . . :shrug:

Size and weight are perfect for me. The E-view finder is DSLR style on the G1 , so, one does not feel uncomfortable or disadvantaged. The 14-45mm lens is a peach . . . I may buy the 20mm pancake? the whole camera will then fit in a 'large' overcoat or anorak pocket. As it is, I fit it in a small KATA bag which fits in my usual, every day, 'man bag' . . . sorted :naughty:

CJS
 
Last edited:
EMA747 said:
First off let me say I know there is a big difference between these two types of cameras in certain situations but I am wondering about other more "normal" situations.
I sold a Canon 1DmkIV a few weeks ago and got myself a Panasonic GF2 as a small "holiday" camera because I was in Mallorca last week. Having a first look at the shots from the GF2 today I am quite honestly blown away by the quality of them. Comparing similar landscape/travel type shots with those I still have from the mkIV I can honestly see VERY little difference if any. :eek: Admittedly I didn't take the GF2 out of ISO100.
Just before I went on holiday I was very seriously missing my mkIV and L lenses and thinking hard about getting another straight away but now I am not so sure at all. In fact I'm wondering if I should sell my L lenses and not get another SLR body full stop.

Has anyone else had similar experiences with M4/3 cameras compared to DSLRs?
Click to expand...

I had a moment of sanity/guilt realising how much cash I had tied up in my huge backpack of full frame Canon gear. I sold the lot and moved back to MFT and now have 2 Olympus E-PL2's, one with the 14-150 and one with the 9-18. I know 2 bodies seems overkill but it is great not having to swap lenses and the kit is small enough to carry around all day long.

Like you I find in decent light the IQ is great and, more importantly, I carry my camera kit with me everywhere now and take loads more pictures. The Canon gear was the best setup I have ever owned in terms of ultimate IQ but the Olympus outfit is just so nice to use - much more fun and very capable.

Now, in my mighty fine Artisan and Artist bag (so glad I didn't sell that!) I can comfortably carry both cameras with lenses attached, EVF (superb piece of kit!!!!), FL36R flash, filters, memory cards and spare batteries :)
 
Last edited:
The crop factor and subsequent deep dof kills the m4/3 system for me to be honest. A lot of my street shots / portraits are at f1.4 - 2.8 and I crave shallow depth of field. That said, the system is clearly miles better than point and shoots / bridge cameras with their tiny sensors.

The GH-1 and GH-2 have reached the high ISO levels of standard APS-C crop cameras now, which is an incredible feat! But they do lag behind the better crop cams from what I've seen.

For me, the Nex is a good compromise. It's tiny and has a decent size sensor. If they put a viewfinder on it, I would use it even more! But the IQ, good as it is, still doesn't touch that of my 5D I'm afraid.

The great news for us lot is that these cameras all have an application...not so good for bank balances mind you...:D
 
I find my E510 to be a nice bridge between the two. It's small, light, easy to use and It's a DSLR. I'm not a pro, never will be. I'll never be able to afford full frame and I find my camera gives me good sharp results most of the time. ISO isn't a bugbear for me, I concentrate on trying to do what my camera is capable of.
 
I find micro 4/3 decent for general use as it's not brilliant in any one area but covers the bases well enough and is compact enough to give a tremendous amount of flexibility in a very small package. My normal micro 4/3 setup is the GH2, GF1, 20mm, 14mm, 7-14mm and the 14-140mm or 100-300mm all of which fits in a small shoulder bag which I can comfortably carry for hours at a time which I can't say about the SLR setup.

The main weaknesses for me with micro 4/3 are the speed and high iso performance, the GH2's AF is fast and an improvement over the GH1 but it's nowhere near the impressive tracking performance of the D700. High iso isn't bad but again can't match the D700's low light performance so when I need either of these I put up with the size/weight and take the D700.

John
 
While looking for something yesterday I came across my first camera, a Kodak Instamatic. I compared it to my GF1 and noticed that apart from the GF1 lens sticking out a bit further they were pretty much the same size although the GF1 is a lot heavier.

I think that the GF1+20mm f1.7 works really well and I would be tempted to ditch my Canon gear for a GH2 if I could get equivalent lenses but unfortunately at this point in time I can't. I suppose I could get a converter to enable me to use my Canon lenses on a GH2 but I'd much prefer MFT lenses on a MFT body.
 
JohnMcL7 said:
I find micro 4/3 decent for general use as it's not brilliant in any one area but covers the bases well enough and is compact enough to give a tremendous amount of flexibility in a very small package. My normal micro 4/3 setup is the GH2, GF1, 20mm, 14mm, 7-14mm and the 14-140mm or 100-300mm all of which fits in a small shoulder bag which I can comfortably carry for hours at a time which I can't say about the SLR setup.

The main weaknesses for me with micro 4/3 are the speed and high iso performance, the GH2's AF is fast and an improvement over the GH1 but it's nowhere near the impressive tracking performance of the D700. High iso isn't bad but again can't match the D700's low light performance so when I need either of these I put up with the size/weight and take the D700.

John
Click to expand...

It's so ridiculous to compare a ~£300 micro four thirds camera to a ~£1800 full frame DSLR.
 
Last edited:
Smeghead said:
It's so ridiculous to compare a ~£300 micro four thirds camera to a ~£1800 full frame DSLR.
Click to expand...

it's not really. they are both cameras. look at a normal picture in the wall at normal viewing distances and you'd not be able to tell. pixel peep yes real world no
 
If you compared them with photos taken at say a football match then of course they won't compare at all.
If I compare the shots I have just taken in Mallorca with some from the mkIV of a similar subject I can't really tell the difference. On Flickr they are 99.9% identical. Viewed at 100% in LR it is still very hard to tell them apart. All are taken at ISO100 and in bright sun so not totally a fair test but it all depends what you are shooting at the time. If I had still got the mkIV and taken it to Mallorca then I would have come back with almost the same shots I got with the GF2.
 
I have yet to find a compact with a good viewfinder and despite IS, as an old traditionalist, arms length viewing of a LCD in sunlight is not for me.

Micro 4/3 can offer an acceptable EVF e.g. panasonic G2, and is still small enough to carry everywhere with minimal loss of IQ compared to APS-c. Its true the body is not much smaller than a small non-pro DSLR but for a true comparison you need to look at all the kit you are tempted to take. The lenses are much more portable (even if a bit plasticky) and a small lightweight tripod will be sufficient.

If you want to be a photographer then its medium format, if you want to be a tourist then micro 4/3 will give you the chance to take photos you can be proud to show and which will print up to A3.

Sometimes full pro kit is out of the question, Long tours, Easyjet carryon, lack of strength for transporting heavy weight gear, cyle trips.

Its good to have the choice!
 
I ditched my 5D Mk2 + 24-105 for a G1 + 20mm. Best thing I ever did! I've taken more and better pictures since. I'm not so precious about it, so it goes out on boozy trips, and you just throw it in a rucksack and not worry about it.
 
EMA747 said:
...only problem is I don't know if a few months down the line I would seriously miss an SLR if I sold up. :thinking:
Click to expand...

I think you would. I did, which is why I went from D700 to GF1 to GF1+GH2 to 5D Mark II. Initially, it's all good, but the novelty soon wore off for me. YMMV.
 
That's exactly what has happened to me. Took a load of dissapointing shots yesterday with the gf1 that would have been so much better with a dslr. Now I'm on the hunt for a dslr again. I may just get something like a 550d and some good glass to keep the size down.

Still think the gf1 is the best thing since slices bread for candids though. Not sure if I'll keep it or flog it and put the money into lenses.
 
I'm thinking of getting a GH2, with the Olympus 9-18mm f4/5.6 or the Panasonic 14-55mm.
Can you get decent [shallow] depth of field with these cams/lens. I understand it's a question of sensor size and lens, anyone got any examples/experiences?
 
philshep said:
I'm thinking of getting a GH2, with the Olympus 9-18mm f4/5.6 or the Panasonic 14-55mm.
Can you get decent [shallow] depth of field with these cams/lens. I understand it's a question of sensor size and lens, anyone got any examples/experiences?
Click to expand...

Not really, well, nothing like you'd get with a prime. Get the 20mm if you want shallow.
 
Thanks Danny, I was looking at the 14mm f2.5 or would you still go for the 20mm f1.7?
 
philshep said:
I'm thinking of getting a GH2, with the Olympus 9-18mm f4/5.6 or the Panasonic 14-55mm.
Can you get decent [shallow] depth of field with these cams/lens. I understand it's a question of sensor size and lens, anyone got any examples/experiences?
Click to expand...
Phil I don't have those lenses but on my GF2 shallow DOF is one thing it does very badly. With the 14-42 zoomed all the way it is still not really shallow. Same for the 14mm pancake on f2.5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top