Micro Four-Thirds System - Experience and Impressions

[Manish Bansal]

Starting a new thread to capture users' experience and impressions about m4/3 system.

[Manish Bansal]

Starting off:

I am extremely impressed by the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 lens. It's extremely sharp wide-open and renders very nicely. It's not too big either. I was surprised to see it in flesh; It's much smaller than you'd think by looking at the photos online. And the construction is a refreshing departure from all-black plastic lenses from Nikon. Well worth owning even if you don't shoot m4/3!

[Roy]

Having used micro four third for close to two years, I can say that the system is built more for convenience than anything else. The dynamic range & noise performance is still quite lagging compared to the best APSC bodies. Another issue is the reduced depth of field & subject isolation. There are two areas though where it shines, street photography & macro with adapted lenses.

Some of the lenses have been very good especially the Oly primes & Leica branded Panasonic ones, but their cost is actually quite prohibitive. Even bodies like OM-D doesn't particularly represent good value for money compared to cams like D7000 or 60D.

Now the mzuiko 45mm 1.8 is an optically stellar lens available at the right price( got to be an exception in the m4/3rd system) ! It was my most favourite lens when I had it but the built quality is nothing to rave about. It is also made of silver plastic with particularly no external control features or distance scale other than a focus ring.

As a system micro 4/3rd still has to go some distance IMHO.

[iamsomnath]

Hi friends ....

i have one epl1 with VF2 finder for last one month. The necessary adapters have just reached & had two three outings in neighbourhood gardens for some test runs. Lenses used pentax 80 200 zoom in p/k mount & vivitar 70 150 3.5 ( kino made) F mount ais  ... both used with achromatic adapters & without it ... some test shots ... im too new to form any firm opinion about the format though ... OOF rendition & contrast seems to be okay though ... perhaps you can judge the pros & cons through pictures better ... the shots are not resized or enhanced ... just a little contrast & sharpening ...

[Roy]

Gorgeous Oly colors Somnath  Focusing needs a little fine tuning for some shots I believe.
Happy to see the E-PL1 & VF2 being put to the right use  Cheers

[iamsomnath]

Gorgeous Oly colors Somnath  Focusing needs a little fine tuning for some shots I believe.
Happy to see the E-PL1 & VF2 being put to the right use  Cheers

So your old flame is happy with me  ... ha ha

regards

somnath

[VikramF]

I use a GF3 (Panasonic) - and yes, I'd agree with Roy (though perhaps more positively). The system is EXTREMELY convenient due to it's size - I find myself carrying it around a lot more than my D700. Yes, dynamic range and high ISO performance isn't on par with the D7000/D300/D700 etc, but then I wasn't expecting it to be so am not disappointed.

I've rarely used the kit lens and mainly use it with my Nikon glass via two adapters I have (a Voigtlander and Metabones F-mount adapter - the latter is no longer needed though). I find the live-view focus to be really good when paired with long-throw focal rings. I do find the touch screen a lot faster to use than dials and don't really miss shots (note, most of my subjects don't move faster than 10-12 Kmph). I've had the most fun pairing this with my 100mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4 and 28mm f/2.8 AIS lenses. Possibly the only m4/3rd lens I would pick up is a pancake lens to make it really compact.

Bottomline: This goes everywhere with me, a lot like my Panasonic LX3 used to and as long as I don't compare it with my D700, the results don't disappoint.

[Manish Bansal]

I do not agree that the only reason for buying into m4/3 is convenience. It's true that its dynamic range etc is not on par with full-frame cameras but then which non-FX sensor can compete with FX sensors. Going by that logic, no body would ever buy APS-C sensor cameras because they lag behind FX cameras. Heck, even FX cameras lag behind medium format digital.

Unless you are shooting for paying customers, there is no reason to chase dynamic range and high-ISO. I don't see any reason why an amateur should go for a D800/5D III or even a D700. If you have money burning a hole in your pocket, then sure, go for the best. But saying that any thing less is useless is just absurd.

[VikramF]

Unless you are shooting for paying customers, there is no reason to chase dynamic range and high-ISO. I don't see any reason why an amateur should go for a D800/5D III or even a D700. If you have money burning a hole in your pocket, then sure, go for the best. But saying that any thing less is useless is just absurd.

That's interesting coming from you. I was under the impression that you were an absolute stickler for WB etc and wanted the perfect WB ... ah, sorry (checked your posts and I have you confused with someone else). Yes, fair enough, there's no logical reason why an amateur HAS to buy the best. But these decisions aren't always based on logic  . Personally, I chase dynamic range and a pro body as I do feel I need it for my photography needs in landscapes (having said that, the D700 isn't the top-of-the-heap in that area any longer - the D3200 is supposedly better  ). I also earn money from my prints and have no other hobby, so I let the money burn a hole.

Hehehe ... was double checking if it was you on the WB and came across this old post of yours

I personally won't ever buy a camera, mirror-less or otherwise, which does not have a viewfinder.

[Manish Bansal]

Unless you are shooting for paying customers, there is no reason to chase dynamic range and high-ISO. I don't see any reason why an amateur should go for a D800/5D III or even a D700. If you have money burning a hole in your pocket, then sure, go for the best. But saying that any thing less is useless is just absurd.

That's interesting coming from you. I was under the impression that you were an absolute stickler for WB etc and wanted the perfect WB ... ah, sorry (checked your posts and I have you confused with someone else). Yes, fair enough, there's no logical reason why an amateur HAS to buy the best. But these decisions aren't always based on logic  . Personally, I chase dynamic range and a pro body as I do feel I need it for my photography needs in landscapes (having said that, the D700 isn't the top-of-the-heap in that area any longer - the D3200 is supposedly better  ). I also earn money from my prints and have no other hobby, so I let the money burn a hole.

Hehehe ... was double checking if it was you on the WB and came across this old post of yours

I personally won't ever buy a camera, mirror-less or otherwise, which does not have a viewfinder.

Well, since you earn money from photography, it's totally justified for you to buy whatever gear you need. You are not strictly a hobbyist

I personally won't ever buy a camera, mirror-less or otherwise, which does not have a viewfinder.

I should have added "unless it was dirt cheap"

[Manish Bansal]

folks

have any of you had an opportunity to run the sony rx100 through its paces? do share, it sure looks like an interesting piece of work.

cs

Hi Suchi,
    Requesting you to keep this topic limited to m4/3 system.

[suchi]

ok. apologies. removed the offending post. cs

folks

have any of you had an opportunity to run the sony rx100 through its paces? do share, it sure looks like an interesting piece of work.

cs

Hi Suchi,
    Requesting you to keep this topic limited to m4/3 system.

[Hellwrath]

I guess I have been one of the few micro four thirds users who has used this system for a while as the main system. I knew what I was getting into even before I bought the first micro four thirds camera (Thanks to NC's year long review of the E-PL1). But, what has been amazing so far is the fact that it just keeps getting better. Like Manish said, I am not after High ISO performance and DR performance because they do not affect the kind of photographs I take as much. Having said that, OM-D has kicked some serious behind in a lot of tests. Again, I can't speak much of the OM-D as such as I have not used one for days together yet and all my knowledge is from various reports/tests by users across the world. That might change soon though . 

One such "controversial test" thread is here:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1131400

I am not after a FF camera or an APS-C DSLR because they're just too heavy for me to carry around (yeah, my build says otherwise, don't get fooled by looks). I cannot imagine myself carrying a 50D with a 10-22 and 70-200 all day long. If I am out, the first thing on my mind is to enjoy the experience. And I'd prefer my equipment not getting in the way of that experience.

And I can go on about how people don't like micro four thirds because they have not used it and the biases they carry and all that, but frankly, I am tired of trying to get rid of wrong information that floats around the internet forums. So yeah, my advice to anyone looking at this system, get a camera, use it and then decide if you want stick to it or not. Personally, I couldn't be more happier that I made this choice. It's a good balance between small camera bodies and appropriately sized lenses. And the ability to mount almost any lens out there on these bodies is such an added bonus.

As far as the lenses go, here's my take:

(i) Panasonic 20mm f1.7: What can I say about this little gem? It's a pancake lens and quite small but don't let that fool you. It's quite a performer. This was the first lens that I got and I must admit I fell in love with it. I cannot quite put my hand about what I like about this lens. It's probably a good balance of all the factors that make a lens worth having. I have heard people say that AF is slow with this lens but I have not faced any problem whatsoever. Couple of my favorites from it:


Tree of Life by Veeresh_ai, on Flickr


Inner Harbor, Baltimore, MD by Veeresh_ai, on Flickr

I'll add my experiences about other lenses later.

[Manish Bansal]

Olympus 45mm f/1.8:
I have been using this lens a lot ever since I got it and there is a reason for that; it's tack sharp wide open and that's where I use it all the time. The "equivalent" Nikon lens would be 85mm f/1.8 which is double the cost and three times the weight (I own this Nikon lens). Here are two samples from this Olympus lens with Panasonic G1 body (the focus was on the eyes):

[Manish Bansal]

As far as the lenses go, here's my take:

(i) Panasonic 20mm f1.7: What can I say about this little gem? It's a pancake lens and quite small but don't let that fool you. It's quite a performer. This was the first lens that I got and I must admit I fell in love with it. I cannot quite put my hand about what I like about this lens. It's probably a good balance of all the factors that make a lens worth having. I have heard people say that AF is slow with this lens but I have not faced any problem whatsoever. Couple of my favorites from it:

I own this lens but have not used it much as I am smitten with 45mm for now But from whatever little I have used it, I completely agree with your assessment.

[Manish Bansal]

Some of the lenses have been very good especially the Oly primes & Leica branded Panasonic ones, but their cost is actually quite prohibitive. Even bodies like OM-D doesn't particularly represent good value for money compared to cams like D7000 or 60D.

I agree with you about the cost part. With some exceptions, the lenses and bodies are not as cheap as they were promised to be. But there is a bright side to this m4/3 thing: as soon as the new generation bodies show up, the prices of prior generation bodies just drops like a rock. The prices of prior generation APS-C and FX bodies drop too but never as much. So if you don't mind owning last year's camera bodies (which are still excellent), you can get some excellent deals.

[VikramF]

Let me know when a 20 f/1.7 price drops like a rock (or the 25 f/2.8 Oly or the 14-42 pancake zoom). I'll buy it and then start using AF. Currently I find it really easy to just use MF Nikkor glass (and rarely, if ever use the 14-42 Panny lens).

PS: The GF3 has become my defacto macro camera now - it's perfect for macro infact. Touch to zoom in for MF (which is done with a Nikkor lens), touch to click. The small sensor means I have greater DOF, the live view and light size, means I can move it at all angles and a LED light rigged onto the tripod screw at the end of a flexible arm means I have plenty of light.
Hmmmm .... so why do I have the 105 Micro Nikkor???

[Manish Bansal]

Let me know when a 20 f/1.7 price drops like a rock (or the 25 f/2.8 Oly or the 14-42 pancake zoom). I'll buy it and then start using AF.

Well, I was just talking about the camera bodies.

[Hellwrath]

Let me know when a 20 f/1.7 price drops like a rock (or the 25 f/2.8 Oly or the 14-42 pancake zoom). I'll buy it and then start using AF. Currently I find it really easy to just use MF Nikkor glass (and rarely, if ever use the 14-42 Panny lens).

If you don't mind something a little wide and small, the Panasonic 14mm is awesome as well. You can get it for $160 on ebay. Or the Sigma 19mm f2.8 for $199. Both are pretty good.

[Arun B]

...

One such "controversial test" thread is here:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1131400
......

Adding one I  came across in FM.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/06/a-weekend-with-the-panasonic-12-35-f2-8