Thinking of Downsizing to a 4/3rd's system?

S

SimonUK

Messages
1,068
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey all,

I've been thinking lately i have had much of a chance to get out with my Camera gear and stuff, and although i love using it all, i just don't take it out because i don't like to carry it :/

Im thinking of down sizing to a system like the Micro 4/3rds Stuff. But i ahve no idea about any of it :/

MY current Gear is listed in my signature. I MUCH prefer primes to Zooms, and i'm a sucker for Shallow Depth of Field.

What would you guys suggest that i could get for my current gear, and what that could buy me in terms of a Micro 4/3rds camera? I don't need anything massively fancy, and i prefer the candy bar style Micro Cameras, rather than the ones that look like little DSLRs.

I'm not giving up the SLR game! i still shoot film :)

Simon
 
not that much to choose from really;

Olympus PEN, several versions, all in the style you like.

Panasonic GF, three version 1 to 3, all good, the later the model the smaller it is, same style as the PEN.

Panasonic G, three versions, slr style with electronic viewfinder, although the G3 is smaller and slimmed down.

Panasonic GH, two versions, slr style, bigger than the G's, full HD video and generally better.
 
The GF2 seems quite good value at the moment - my partner got one for £350 at Dixons recently - it's normally £399 but it was the display model so they took £50 off the list price. She got the twin lens kit with 14mm f/2.5 prime and 14-42mm zoom but the zoom defeats the object of a compact camera so she is going to sell it. I've seen it offered at £299 as a prime only kit but they did not have that in stock.

What I have noticed is that iso1600 is quite grainy so she has set 800 as the max iso - it's probably not the ideal low light camera for this reason but it works well for general use. The "program ae" mode is pretty useless as it does not seem to adjust the aperture so best to use shutter or aperture priority. It's also aimed at autofocus use mainly as MF is quite fiddly - you just get a silly distance scale on the LCD with a flower and a mountain but no proper distance markings like you do on an slr lens.

I'm waiting for the day when true SLR like functionality comes to m43, but it's a lot easier to carry!
 
I'm in the same boat, but after looking at the M4/3rds system I'm preferring the Sony NEX-5 as it has a APS-C sensor (and a good one at that). The M4/3rd system is always behind the Sony when it comes to IQ, especially high ISO's (which I want it for).

OK, so the menus aren't very good, but have been improved thanks to the latest firmware. The native lens choice is poor, but with an adapter you can attach some very nice glass (even A/F is available with Sony's adapter).

Like you, I find myself taking the D300 + lenses + all the other stuff out less and less now, meaning I miss some good photos. When we fly, my hand luggage is nearly all taken with camera gear! I now want something that I can simply stick in a small bag or a pocket and be able to use at every opportunity without sacrificing much IQ at all. With the kit lens and the pancake, maybe I'll start to pay attention more to technique than to the technical side.

Anyway, if I buy a NEX second hand and have a play, I'll know whether I want to continue with it or quit, without it costing a fortune. And with the NEX-5n and the NEX-7 coming out, perhaps more togs will be looking at this system in the near future...

Just my 2p worth ;)
 
I have a GF1 and a G1. It'd always be nice to have better IQ at higher ISO but I find that 1600 from the GF1 +20mm f1.7 is perfectly useable after noise reduction. I wasn't happy with the results from Silkipix but CS5 is much better. I have a 25mm f0.95 on the G1 and I can't remember hitting 1600 too often so it's less of an issue with that set up as quite low light shooting can be done at 400 or so.

Other than being a stop or so noisier at higher ISO I find that the IQ is good and at normal image / print sizes and viewing distances and without checking I really do have trouble working out what shots were taken with what camera, G1, GF1, 20D or 5D. I find that differences in contrast, colour and saturation etc seem not to matter if shooting RAW and processing post capture, things seem to equal out, and MFT images can take a lot of processing before falling apart.

The relatively compact size and light weight are a real bonus but what really lets MFT down for me is the lenses. There still doesn't seem to be a fast standard zoom, just an endless stream of new 3.5-5.6's so I eventually gave up hoping. Thankfully I mostly use primes anyway but although the 20mm f1.7 is a good lens I like lens markings to allow hyperfocal shooting or focusing by distance and sadly the Panny lenses don't have markings and even manually setting focus at infinity is a pain and a guessing game. In frustration I bought the Voigtlander but of course although I've gained markings and easy manual setting I've lost autofocus.

TBH I might consider ditching MFT and switching to something else but that something else still doesn't seem to exist. The Samsung system looks to have lenses more to my liking but there's no built in VF and although the Nex 7 has a VF I can't see a focal length I'm completely happy with and yet again they've ditched the markings.

It looks like I can't have my cake and eat it.
 
woof woof said:
....
The relatively compact size and light weight are a real bonus but what really lets MFT down for me is the lenses. There still doesn't seem to be a fast standard zoom, just an endless stream of new 3.5-5.6's so I eventually gave up hoping. Thankfully I mostly use primes anyway but although the 20mm f1.7 is a good lens I like lens markings to allow hyperfocal shooting or focusing by distance and sadly the Panny lenses don't have markings and even manually setting focus at infinity is a pain and a guessing game. In frustration I bought the Voigtlander but of course although I've gained markings and easy manual setting I've lost autofocus....
Click to expand...

Wow now that's what I call a lens! :cool:

Pity they don't do a 14mm

This would be ideal for me as I have 0% interest in using autofocus :eek:
 
It is a joy to use and of course with MFT you can have a magnified view to ease focusing and that's a great help, it also focuses very close and is good for psudo macro shots.

I'd still like AF too though.
 
SimonUK said:
Hey all,

I've been thinking lately i have had much of a chance to get out with my Camera gear and stuff, and although i love using it all, i just don't take it out because i don't like to carry it :/

Im thinking of down sizing to a system like the Micro 4/3rds Stuff. But i ahve no idea about any of it :/

MY current Gear is listed in my signature. I MUCH prefer primes to Zooms, and i'm a sucker for Shallow Depth of Field.

What would you guys suggest that i could get for my current gear, and what that could buy me in terms of a Micro 4/3rds camera? I don't need anything massively fancy, and i prefer the candy bar style Micro Cameras, rather than the ones that look like little DSLRs.

I'm not giving up the SLR game! i still shoot film :)

Simon
Click to expand...

If you want shallow DoF, M43 will give you about one stop greater than crop format, and two stops more than full frame, with equivalent framing and same f/number.
 
"The same framing" only tells half the story though and if you are willing to change the framing different results are possible.

To get good control of DoF with ANY format you need to know what affects DoF and if you do you can get good DoF control from MFT by being careful with your aperture, camera to subject distance and subject to background distance.

For example, I can get much shallower DoF from my 25mm on MFT than I can with a 50mm on FF even at the same aperture because I can focus much closer with the MFT setup. The FoV will be different but the DoF will be much shallower because the camera to subject distance is much shorter. Even with the same lens and aperture in some situations smaller formats will actually give you what will look like less DoF (although the FoV will again be different) and that's something that critics of smaller formats often fail to take into account.

It depends upon how you like or are willing to shoot but with a little thought and flexibility the "MFT gives you greater DoF" brigade might be surprised.

These comments are made not to yet again open up the DoF argument but to get people to think about possibilities and what options are right for them :)
 
Last edited:
No, please no, NOOOOOOO!!! Not the sensor / DOF argument again! ;)
 
odd jim said:
No, please no, NOOOOOOO!!! Not the sensor / DOF argument again! ;)
Click to expand...

Sorry Jim :D I worded my post specifically with the intention of heading him off at the pass. It's as clear, unambiguous, and completely true as I could make it... :(
 
HoppyUK said:
Sorry Jim :D I worded my post specifically with the intention of heading him off at the pass. It's as clear, unambiguous, and completely true as I could make it... :(
Click to expand...

Good :D but it was only half the story... wasn't it? :lol:

PS. Please :lol:

PPS. What do you expect from someone called "way out of focus way out of focus." :)
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Good :D but it was only half the story... wasn't it? :lol:

PS. Please :lol:

PPS. What do you expect from someone called "way out of focus way out of focus." :)
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't.
 
The 12 mm and 42 mm Olympus primes are both looking very goid, the lata being quite reasonabally priced
 
Coming back to the original issue of not wanting to take a load of gear with you... does a M4/3 actually *realistically* make any difference in the real world?

Having a smaller DSLR (ie not something like a D3!) and a small lens (eg Sigma 18-50) in a bag won't make that much difference will it?

The problem with the whole SLR malarky is that you go... ok lets get ready to go out... camera body... normal lens... telephoto lens (in case something is too far away)... wide angle lens (in case I see something errm wide)... teleconverters... flash(es... best take 3 just in case)... radio triggers for the flash... tripod... gorilla pods for the flash(es)... batteries... more batteries... even more batteries... 6 memory cards... filters... rocket blower... cleaning cloth... camera bag that weighs 8kg before I put anything in it....

Thats what the problem is, you just end up carrying too much gear because its a modular system.

M4/3 won't save you... you need something that won't take a plethora of extra junk... like a decent compact.
 
desantnik said:
Coming back to the original issue of not wanting to take a load of gear with you... does a M4/3 actually *realistically* make any difference in the real world?

Having a smaller DSLR (ie not something like a D3!) and a small lens (eg Sigma 18-50) in a bag won't make that much difference will it?

The problem with the whole SLR malarky is that you go... ok lets get ready to go out... camera body... normal lens... telephoto lens (in case something is too far away)... wide angle lens (in case I see something errm wide)... teleconverters... flash(es... best take 3 just in case)... radio triggers for the flash... tripod... gorilla pods for the flash(es)... batteries... more batteries... even more batteries... 6 memory cards... filters... rocket blower... cleaning cloth... camera bag that weighs 8kg before I put anything in it....

Thats what the problem is, you just end up carrying too much gear because its a modular system.

M4/3 won't save you... you need something that won't take a plethora of extra junk... like a decent compact.
Click to expand...

Disagree, my m4/3 gear will soon comprise of G3 and G1 bodies, with 14m, 20mm, 45mm and 100-300mm lenses. I'll be able to carry all that in a small crumpler bag. I'd have to take my large tamrac bags to carry similar canon gear, plus the weight is in different league. To me that's the whole point of m4/3 system
 
If you try and see the m 4/3 as an advanced compact and stick to either a compact zoom (like the 14-42 X) or a prime it is almost pocketable. When I take my DSLR even though I have the relatively compact K-5 with a pancake prime like the 21mm or 40mm I still have to either carry a bag with me which means zip unzip take out put back in or carry it on my shoulder, things that I'd rather not do when I just go out with friends or mountain biking and so on.

I have come around to the m 4/3, especially now that the GX-1 with the aforementioned compact zoom is out. Very compact, very easy to carry and while the IQ not at the levels of my K-5 as a replacement to my LX3 it should be perfect.
 
vrapan said:
If you try and see the m 4/3 as an advanced compact and stick to either a compact zoom (like the 14-42 X) or a prime it is almost pocketable. When I take my DSLR even though I have the relatively compact K-5 with a pancake prime like the 21mm or 40mm I still have to either carry a bag with me which means zip unzip take out put back in or carry it on my shoulder, things that I'd rather not do when I just go out with friends or mountain biking and so on.
Click to expand...

Yup, that describes the issue of bulky camera gear nicely - its for when (IMHO) you aren't going out to take photos, you are going out to do something else but want to take a few momentos of your day in as best a quality as you can (because you are a photographer) BUT cannot afford to compromise mobility.

As a photographer its easy to try to turn anything into a photoshoot, but you just have to let it go... sometimes... ;-)
 
Naith said:
I'm in the same boat, but after looking at the M4/3rds system I'm preferring the Sony NEX-5 as it has a APS-C sensor (and a good one at that). The M4/3rd system is always behind the Sony when it comes to IQ, especially high ISO's (which I want it for).
Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat, but worry about it not having a flash. I want to a compact, lighter system, without an evf, so would not want to carry around an external flash, even if it is tiny!! (Compared to Canon 580EX) Maybe the better high iso performance would compensate for not having a flash? I'm not sure? I've not used my DSLR gear for a while now, and find myself using my Panny TZ7 most of the time. This is mainly for general/family stuff. To get the same reach as the TZ7, I woulld probably end up with a 2 lens system.
 
Last edited:
G3 is a great camera IMO. Still small, has a useable view finder and IQ is excellent.
 
m4/3 DOF is just shallow enough. Any smaller a sensor and it'd be no good. IMO of course.
 
desantnik said:
Thats what the problem is, you just end up carrying too much gear because its a modular system.
Click to expand...

I think this is a good point, if the idea is take a 'smaller' bag and to carry 'lighter' downsizing to a compact modular system makes a lot of sense. If the angst is having to always carry a 'bag' with a plethora of accessories which you may not use 80% of the time anyway, then the simple answer is just to get a decent compact camera and live with the limitation it brings- worse case - everyone has a camera on their phones don't they?

Until I give up the DSLR setup, investing alongside into a compact system will just be a money pit!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top