Is m4/3 a logical choice?

I've been looking to upgrade from my Nikon D80 for quite a while, and have done what feels like quite extensive research about the options available... The obvious choice might be the current version of that camera, the D7000, which has undoubtedly got excellent features and good write-ups, but is nonetheless a moderately large camera (as is the D80). Since I haven't as yet (although I intend to do so) invested in further lenses the GH2 came up as an obvious, if alternative choice... So if I am considering switching, now is the time to do so.

There are clearly advantages to the fast pace of development in the m4/3 sector, with what seem to be numerous new lenses and a fairly fast development cycle on new cameras. This is also interesting.

Having pondered this for a while, I think I'm coming to the conclusion that the Panasonic m4/3 system might be really good for me - I'm fully aware of the potentially limitations compared to larger DX and FF SLRs, but I'm happy to compromise a little to get something that's inherently easier to carry around.

I'd say my particular interests are wide-angle and macro photography, and the Panasonic system seems to have a number of options available to me to cover these (although expensive, so the 'official' options might be a later investment).

What I'm really trying to work out is whether this is a logical conclusion - i.e. will I feel that the GH2 isn't much of an upgrade from the D80, or that I should have stuck with Nikon for some other reason?

Am I being 'seduced' by the idea of getting something smaller that will achieve all my aims (I'm not interested in tiny pixel-peeping technical disparities, more in the basic appeal of images and the 'feel' of the camera), or is it too much to hope for at the moment? Is there something else I should be considering instead?

Apologies that this is rather long-winded, I'm just trying to pre-empt a few questions by explaining some of my thought process so far. I've already read a couple of interesting threads here about GH2 vs. D7000 comparisons and the advice there was really useful.

I recently added a D7000 to my Nikon system and added a Panasonic G2 to my Micro Four Thirds system last fall.

If you hike and want a lighter option for travel, MFT is a nice option with good performance. If you use flash with your macro work, you'll find MFT's thin flash options to be paleolithic compared to Nikon's speedlight system. The D7000 has significantly better noise and dymanic range performance.

I personally couldn't replace my DSLR system with MFT, but I do like having a light, compact alternative that I use often. If you can spend some time with an MFT camera, do that before you decide. If you can, start building a parallel system before deciding to go with one or the other. I prefer both, but I understand that's not always and option.

And in terms on handling, your D80 is much more responsive than any of the MFT bodies. The the GH2 does three things better than the D7000. It does small. It works better as a video camera. And it does live view contrast detect focusing better.

--
BJ Nicholls
SLC, UT

Same here, a Pentax K-7 owner who replaced his compact cam with a G1. It is a tough call as to going with just one or the other though: the weather-sealed K-7 is great in lousy weather, the flip-screen and compactness of the G1 is compelling in other conditions. I'm still seeking a gear balance between the two systems.

You need to feel a G/GH camera in your hands to know if it's for you, compared to larger-sensor dSLRs these really are small - and the difference between 'small' and 'too small' is crucial, and personal. And if you're thinking GF size, that's even smaller! I'm a real fan of the flip screen and EVF, so I'm happy with the G/GH size. As to image quality, the old G1 is plenty good for me, 12Mpxl is enough resolution. I know I won't own another small-sensor camera regardless of any 'serious' tag: m4/3 takes care of that!

Another real advantage to micro 4/3 is its easy adaptation to older lenses esp. those with aperture rings. For macro work, something along those lines could serve you well! I have no feeling for flash units though so cannot advise on that part of macro work.
--
Jim in Oregon.. granitix.blogspot.. A200 veteran, now K-7 + G1

Most Nikon lenses have aperture rings. This means they work great with micro43 cameras (with an adapter), but you have to manually focus.

I would get a micro43 camera with a kit lens and keep the old Nikon for now. Then you can test taking pictures with the same lens on both cameras and also get a feel for the new camera with the kit lens. If you decide you like the smaller camera, then you can sell the Nikon and start getting more native lenses.

Just Having Fun said:

Most Nikon lenses have aperture rings. This means they work great with micro43 cameras (with an adapter), but you have to manually focus.

Click to expand...

Because of the way Nikon lenses are designed, even the lenses that don't have aperture rings can be adapted and controlled with an adapter that has an aperture ring in the adapter. You'll have to eyeball the aperture by checking how the camera meters, but that's not too tough.

lukebacon said:

...

I'd say my particular interests are wide-angle and macro photography, and the Panasonic system seems to have a number of options available to me to cover these (although expensive, so the 'official' options might be a later investment).
...

Click to expand...

Luke,

If you were interested in video (my biggie), the GH2 would be a no-brainer. If you're primarily interested in stills, it gets a bit more complex.

I'm not much of a macro shooter, but IMO, a G2 or GH2 would be the best u4/3 option for macros simply because of the moveable LCD. You can twist the camera around to a weird angle (like underneath a leaf) and still get a comfortable viewing angle for composition and focusing. And in general, the deeper DOF that most FF fans dislike is obviously an advantage for Macro work.

For wide angle, the Pany 7-14 is very nice. Search for "7-14" in this forum and you should find some very nice pics showing the power of that lens. I have one, but a combo of work, flu, and very wet weather locally has gotten in the way of using it. (I'm hoping for a chance tomorrow morning.) Uwe Steinmueller of Outback Photo has some very interesting things to say about it in his review here: http://www.outbackphoto.com/CONTENT_2007_01/section_gear_cameras_2010/20100111_Panasonic_7_14/index.html . Besides being a very nice lens, he points out that the small size and low weight allow you to do things with it that you can't do with other APC or FF ultra wide angle lenses (which are larger and heavier).

He also points out that the movable LCD makes it much easier to get super low or super high shots. I have a tall monopod. With the remote switch, I can take pics with the camera 4 feet over my head and 3 feet below my feet (like looking under a dock while standing on it). This could give you some interesting perspectives - like holding the camera over an outlook pointed straight down (I'm thinking Glacier National Park, Yosemite, or the Grand Canyon here). While you could try this with an APS-C or FF cameras, the weight of the camera plus a super wide angle lens would make it a dicey proposition unless you were a young, strong fellow.

FYI... I replaced my Nikon D70 and Canon HV30 video camera with my GH2. The only thing I really miss is the Nikon flash system (I had an SB800). Nothing's perfect.

Good luck with your decision.

Regards,

Dan.

lukebacon wrote:
[snip]

lukebacon said:

There are clearly advantages to the fast pace of development in the m4/3 sector, with what seem to be numerous new lenses and a fairly fast development cycle on new cameras. This is also interesting.

Click to expand...

That can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how often you're planning on upgrading, or if you'll be sorely tempted into upgrading by frequent product upgrades.

[snip]

lukebacon said:

What I'm really trying to work out is whether this is a logical conclusion - i.e. will I feel that the GH2 isn't much of an upgrade from the D80, or that I should have stuck with Nikon for some other reason?

Am I being 'seduced' by the idea of getting something smaller that will achieve all my aims (I'm not interested in tiny pixel-peeping technical disparities, more in the basic appeal of images and the 'feel' of the camera), or is it too much to hope for at the moment? Is there something else I should be considering instead?

Click to expand...

Note: all my image quality opinions are based on raw files.

I've had a D200 and D60. I still have a D70 and D300. I've used a D90, D50 and D80. As far as high ISO noise and dynamic range is concerned, I'd place the GH2 closer to the D60/D80/D200 series of cameras. On the GH2, you might find the noise better at ISO1600 compared to the D80 and D200. Dynamic range is similar, I think.

As long as you're careful to avoid blown highlights I think you'll find the GH2 to produce wonderful results. Using its real-time histogram helps in this regard. There are a few limitations working with m43 cameras compared to your Nikon. If you frequently make use of pre-focusing or using your lens' focus distance markings, you'll be frustrated by m43 lenses because they don't have distance scales, plus they do not stay at the last-used focus distance between camera start-ups. In other words, even if the camera is in manual focus mode, if you have it focused on something at 12 ft and shut it off, when you turn it on again, it will reset the lens to a non-selectable default focus distance. There is also viewfinder lag when framing shots in low light. Tracking AF isn't as good as the better DSLRs (although it's probably as good as your D80) plus the shutter blackout time is longer.

Still, there's a lot to be said for portability. Even with my D60, I found it too bulky and heavy as a carry-every-day camera. With my GH2 and 14-45, I have no qualms about carrying it every day. So that, right there, means I'm making myself available to more photo opportunities than with my DSLRs. For me, the GH2 is the first m43 camera that has the right combination of image quality, performance and handling that makes it capable of replacing my DSLR for most uses. The G1 I had before it was a good first try. But the GH2 is much better, particularly in terms of ergonomics. Coming from the D80, I think you'll find the GH2's control layout to be pretty good, once you're used to it. It's mostly a matter of programming the 3 func buttons the way you want them. The camera allows for a lot of customization so you'll have to spend a lot of time reading through the crappy user manual. Read it a bit, play with the camera a bit, then go back through the manual every few days.

Oh, I should mention that m43 lens options are somewhat limited. They really need a fast normal zoom, a fast tele zoom, and a fast superwide prime or zoom. To be an ideal system, a wireless flash system would also be great. The fast lenses, wireless flash, wider dynamic range, and excellent AF tracking are why I'm keeping my Nikon gear for now.

larsbc

I just have to add, that as much as I'd like to think buying any camera is a logical choice, based on image quality, speed of response, and all the other things one can learn from reviews here and elsewhere, I think that in the end it is only "logical" to the person making the choice, and may not seem so to most other people.

In my case: I am only an amateur and didn't want to spend more on equipment than I can really justify in my mind. So: G10 instead of G2. Kit lens + 45-200mm tele, surely one of the best deals around. And why Panasonic m4/3? It was about the same size as the FZ7, form factor and size I liked, menu system I was already familiar with (although there are significant differences, of course), from a manufacturer I had good experience with. And, reviews showed good focus speed. Not the best JPEGs, but good enough, and it would be my first camera that could shoot raw and I was looking forward to trying that.

Is that LOGICAL? Perhaps for me. But for anyone else every single one of these considerations might not apply.

Thanks all for that, really helpful feedback. I think I'm sufficiently convinced that the GH2 is definitely worth a shot, despite being a bit concerned that I haven't actually seen one as yet.

Of course any situation's a compromise, particularly when aiming for a smaller camera and sensor size, but I've been really impressed with the array of lenses for m43 - especially the 7-14, which really appeals to the sort of photography I'm interested in.

The point about holding on to the Nikon for the time being is a really good one actually - I was debating whether to try and trade it in or not - which is financially worthwhile, but I think it's important to see what I use the GH2 for first. You're definitely right that I might want to keep hold of a little bit of Nikon stuff for the occasional really 'serious' stuff. More importantly though, I'll have gained a camera that's far easier to carry around on a regular basis - if not quite pocketable.

Thanks again for all the advice - it's a real testament to this forum - and thanks for convincing me! I'll let you know how I get on with it.

Were'd you think you might buy a GH2? D7000s are more likely to be in stock. That D80 should serve you long after the GH2 fancy fades, and perhaps until the GH3 is announced, which may be before GH2s become plentiful.

Cy Cheze said:

Were'd you think you might buy a GH2? D7000s are more likely to be in stock. That D80 should serve you long after the GH2 fancy fades, and perhaps until the GH3 is announced, which may be before GH2s become plentiful.

Click to expand...

Available is largely location-dependent (pretty obvious, I know). My local drugstore's camera department had the D7000 and GH2 within a day or two of them being available in Canada. And they sold lots of both, too. Surprisingly, though, I was able to walk in and handle both cameras. Then a couple of days later I walked in and bout the GH2 off the shelf. Didn't have to go on a waiting list.

larsbc

A fair point, but here in the UK there's a number of retailers (admittedly mostly mail-order based, but reputable ones) who have a number of them in stock and/or are expecting more early this week - as a result prices aren't too horrific as yet.

You're right that very few bricks-and-mortar camera shops have them in stock at the moment, although most claim to have had a few 'through' soon after release - as a result I haven't managed to see a GH2 'in the flesh', only the older G2/G10 - very few places here seem interested in the GH1 which is a shame, as it would have been a more useful comparison.

Seems like the only way to find out is going to be to order one and see what I think of it - I'm just negotiating a bit of a bundle at the moment.

Based on your interest in macro photography I would say it is not a logical choice. Yes there are a couple 4/3 macro lenses available but there is only the E-PL1 that supports off camera flash and then there are only two flash heads available.

Compare that to a VR macro from Nikon, available extension tubes and bellows, and the greater range of options for off camera flash including the uniquely capable macro flash system, the R1C1.

The 4/3 are great for general photography and traveling light but there are compromises to be made in a number of areas and more limited options.

The obvious choice is FF, a D700. M-4/3 will give you poor focus, noise and artifacts. If not, yes, the D7000 would be a good choice, as it has the built-in focus drive.

I used to keep Nikon FX and DX gear. However, I finally figured it out. I kept my Nikon D700 FX and lenses for important work. And I replaced my DX gear with m4/3: now Panasonic GF1 and lenses. Which is much much smaller and compact than Nikon DX gear. So far it is working very good. I would not want Panasonic GH, or G models, because it defeats the purpose, I could have kept Nikon DX gear instead it is not much smaller.

--

larsbc said:

There are a few limitations working with m43 cameras compared to your Nikon. If you frequently make use of pre-focusing or using your lens' focus distance markings, you'll be frustrated by m43 lenses because they don't have distance scales, plus they do not stay at the last-used focus distance between camera start-ups. In other words, even if the camera is in manual focus mode, if you have it focused on something at 12 ft and shut it off, when you turn it on again, it will reset the lens to a non-selectable default focus distance. There is also viewfinder lag when framing shots in low light. Tracking AF isn't as good as the better DSLRs (although it's probably as good as your D80) plus the shutter blackout time is longer.
larsbc

Click to expand...

I guess this is not true.

Well I don't know about Panasonic, but with Olympus you have the choice to reset the lens or not, you can do that in the custom menu "A" AF/MF option, "reset lens" on an E-PL1 for E-P1/2 it'more or less the same.
You are right about distance scale, there isn't one.

--
Digifan

Absolutic said:

I used to keep Nikon FX and DX gear. However, I finally figured it out. I kept my Nikon D700 FX and lenses for important work. And I replaced my DX gear with m4/3: now Panasonic GF1 and lenses. Which is much much smaller and compact than Nikon DX gear. So far it is working very good. I would not want Panasonic GH, or G models, because it defeats the purpose, I could have kept Nikon DX gear instead it is not much smaller.

Click to expand...

If this were true I think I'd have been more comfortable sticking with Nikon DX, but having compared the G and GH against the D3100 and D7000 size-wise in the shop, I felt that (taking into account the size of lenses) for me these were both significantly smaller, and a bit lighter too. Add in the quality of the lenses compared to that of the very basic Nikon kit lenses (although admittedly you spend more on the Panasonic ones) and I think you have a strong contender.

At least, I hope so (since I just ordered myself a GH2) - but I may well be speaking too soon and yet end up going back to Nikon.

The GFs are great though - I really like the idea, if I get into m4/3, of having a really small body (eg GF2) onto which I could mount the same lenses for carry-around work when I might not expect to take photos. -- I say the same lenses, perhaps not the 14-140 but one of the pancakes would be most appropriate for this aim!

The GH2 seems to be right up there with the D7000 and 60D. It may lag a little in the higher ISO regions, but it's a very competitive camera in a much smaller package.

Alternatively, the new E-PL2 is a very complete and mature camera. It misses the GH2 AF speed (faster then many DSLR's), multi-aspect sensor, 1080 video, tilt-swivel screen etc. But it is more pocketable, especially with one of the pancake lenses (14mm, 17mm, 20mm). I've got the E-PL1 with the Lumix 20mm f/1.7 lens and think it's a great combination of IQ, compactness and low light performance.

As to wide angle, you can use the Olympus 9-18mm lens. It's not the extreme range of the Lumix lens, but it's several $100 cheaper. Likewise, for macro, Olympus will soon announce the 50mm macro for m4/3. If it's similar in quality and price to the DSLR-version, it will be a real winner.

lukebacon said:

I've been looking to upgrade from my Nikon D80 for quite a while, and have done what feels like quite extensive research about the options available... The obvious choice might be the current version of that camera, the D7000, which has undoubtedly got excellent features and good write-ups, but is nonetheless a moderately large camera (as is the D80). Since I haven't as yet (although I intend to do so) invested in further lenses the GH2 came up as an obvious, if alternative choice... So if I am considering switching, now is the time to do so.

There are clearly advantages to the fast pace of development in the m4/3 sector, with what seem to be numerous new lenses and a fairly fast development cycle on new cameras. This is also interesting.

Having pondered this for a while, I think I'm coming to the conclusion that the Panasonic m4/3 system might be really good for me - I'm fully aware of the potentially limitations compared to larger DX and FF SLRs, but I'm happy to compromise a little to get something that's inherently easier to carry around.

I'd say my particular interests are wide-angle and macro photography, and the Panasonic system seems to have a number of options available to me to cover these (although expensive, so the 'official' options might be a later investment).

What I'm really trying to work out is whether this is a logical conclusion - i.e. will I feel that the GH2 isn't much of an upgrade from the D80, or that I should have stuck with Nikon for some other reason?

Am I being 'seduced' by the idea of getting something smaller that will achieve all my aims (I'm not interested in tiny pixel-peeping technical disparities, more in the basic appeal of images and the 'feel' of the camera), or is it too much to hope for at the moment? Is there something else I should be considering instead?

Apologies that this is rather long-winded, I'm just trying to pre-empt a few questions by explaining some of my thought process so far. I've already read a couple of interesting threads here about GH2 vs. D7000 comparisons and the advice there was really useful.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilgy_no1

digifan wrote:
[snip]

digifan said:

Well I don't know about Panasonic, but with Olympus you have the choice to reset the lens or not, you can do that in the custom menu "A" AF/MF option, "reset lens" on an E-PL1 for E-P1/2 it'more or less the same.

Click to expand...

Well that's interesting. I didn't know Olympus cameras had that option. I haven't found anything like that on my G1 or GH2 but I'll have a look through the manual again. FWIW, I confirmed this behaviour with another Panasonic shooter, so perhaps it is just a limitation with Pansonic cameras.

larsbc

Bilgy_no1 said:

The GH2 seems to be right up there with the D7000 and 60D. It may lag a little in the higher ISO regions, but it's a very competitive camera in a much smaller package.

Alternatively, the new E-PL2 is a very complete and mature camera. It misses the GH2 AF speed (faster then many DSLR's), multi-aspect sensor, 1080 video, tilt-swivel screen etc. But it is more pocketable, especially with one of the pancake lenses (14mm, 17mm, 20mm). I've got the E-PL1 with the Lumix 20mm f/1.7 lens and think it's a great combination of IQ, compactness and low light performance.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I want to hear (now I've ordered a GH2!) - You're completely right about the Olympus and/or GF* being much more pocketable, but I think the focus speed is crucial to me, coming from an SLR initially, but my eventual aim if I like the system is that I can then buy a GF2 or E-PL2 as a compact 'travel' body.

For anyone interested, I decided the only real way I was going to reach a decision was to try the GH2 properly - with a view to sending it back in exchange for a D7000 if it doesn't suit - so I've ordered it today from fotoSense in the UK, who had it in stock and were able to give me a good price on the camera kit and a spare battery.