Devil's advocate..and M4/3rds.

What appeal would m4/3rds gear have if the advantage of smaller size, and lighter weight was taken out of the picture? Can anyone do a real sales job WITHOUT mentioning or implying the size/weight advantage?

Had a discussion with a friend about this, and I was at a loss as to MFT "pros", once these points were removed from the argument/discussion.

Is MFT (almost, if not) entirely about size?

I didn't want to give the impression that I personally found the "size" issue a weak one for taking on a MFT system. That's basically why I'm doing it. Just wondered if there were any other important reasons other than that, for climbing on board the MFT train.

It's also about having a system designed around live view and EVF -- much the same as the appeal of Sony SLTs. You see exposure (and, if shooting JPEGs, white balance) before you shoot. You can much more accurately review pictures after. On u4/3, you have automatic focus zoom for manual focus, which is a huge upside if you're shooting fairly static things (although a bit of a downside for things with more motion). It took a few months to get used to EVF, but now, I greatly prefer it to my OVF.

The automatic modes in EVF cameras are dramatically smarter than OVF cameras. For autofocus, I no longer need to pick focus points and modes -- the camera is now as good at that as I am. I do still set aperture, shutter, and ISO, but even there, I am occasionally starting to shoot in more automatic modes, just because the camera can think faster than I can.

In practice, video modes work better too, but I'm not sure if that's because of u4/3, or just because the GH2 is designed around it. I have a bunch of GH2s which we bought for a use case where size, weight, and cost were all mostly irrelevant. Some Canons are almost as good, but the GH2 is still a bit ahead, especially in terms of ergonomics. The Nikons -- at least excluding models just released, which have not been used enough yet to know -- are crap in comparison. Sony dSLTs would be decent if they had audio level controls, but they don't, so they're effectively useless for video work.

Disclaimer: I mostly use dSLTs for stills, and u4/3 for video, and have very little experience the other way around. I apologize if I generalized anything between the two that hasn't carried over yet.

They can be great for street photography & candids since they look less 'serious' than DSLRs.

Keto,
But by "less serious" are you indirectly referring to their smaller sizes?

Alphoid,

What exactly do mean by "automatic focus zoom for manual focus"? Sounds like a contradiction.

When you turn the focus ring on the lens, the camera senses that, and the EVF switches from showing the whole image to a zoom of a small region. This allows you to focus much more accurately than either autofocus, or manual focus on an OVF (even with split prism and other focus aids). This is very useful for fine focus work (e.g. copystands, macro, etc.). On Sony dSLTs, you can do the same thing with a push of a button (I believe the lenses aren't electronically wired to tell the camera when you turn the focus ring).

I do find the Panasonic approach slightly annoying some of the time -- you lose sight of what you're shooting for a moment, and picture-in-picture would be ideal. There's probably an option to turn it off for those times, but the level of annoyance isn't high enough to check the manual. For most uses, it's nice to have on (if I could only have one mode, I would definitely prefer having it automatically zoom to having to press a button, as in Sony).

The really major annoyance I have with u4/3 is that all the lenses I've used have focus fly-by-wire. If you focus, turn the camera off and back on, you'll lose your focus settings. This is very annoying for copystand work. I'm not sure how many people this effects besides me.

I am a bit slow in following this thread.

Micro 4/3rds' main appeal is its size...

This is like saying.....What appeal does Nikon D800 have if that FF sensor could only capture images in 8MP max...

I don't own one of those micro cameras, but from what I've read about them, it does seem that the big "push" for them is about size. I don't like them for that reason, especially the Olympus PENs that were designed without built-in viewfinders. We'll wait and see what the Olympus OMD camera offers after the reviews are made.

I prefer the "mid-size" DSLR gear like my Olympus E-500, Olympus E-510, or Canon T2i (550D) cameras. I also like using the relatively lightweight standard Olympus Zuiko glass and the Canon EF-S lenses. So, for me using something smaller is important, but I find that some of these DSLR cameras and lenses fit that requirement (not all of them are too large). We don't have to use micro cameras and lenses, when other alternative smaller DSLR gear exists.

Yes, its totally about size and weight. It has nothing to do with any of the features or implementation on current m4/3 format cameras. You see, m4/3 is only a standardized format that incorporates a lens mount system and sensor size. Beyond that, anything goes.

Compared to 35 mm film sized sensor systems m4/3 can potentially provide the same FOV telephoto lens in 1/2 the size and weight. One also has to compromise on DOF compared to "full frame" sensor sized formats just as full frame formats compromise compared to medium format. Its all relative and up to the individual to decide what compromises and limitations are acceptable, or not.

Oh yes, I'm not saying that choices don't depend on what's available. as far as lenses are concerned.

HJ

With advanced cameras, MP and ISO are already at levels beyond what most of us have a practical use for, so the reason to keep buying the latest 'digital film', better known as a camera body, is diminishing. How many of you D700 owners are wrestling with the cost/benefit of buying a D800? Not as clear cut as it once was.

It's disappointing that DR hasn't seen drastic improvements... if the gearheads would just start yapping about that, maybe we'd have a real reason to upgrade.

I suppose they could make fine glass cheaper... nah, that'll never happen.

Sports/action? Not a priority with a lot of us, so the best action camera only sells to a limited crowd.

That really leaves size, and to a lesser degree, advanced viewfinders as areas where serious gains can be made. Don't improve the specs, improve the conditions under which the camera can be used. Plus one other innovation found only in M43: two companies building to the same standard.

And these are serious improvements. Since I got a Pen, the dslr stays at home more often than not. It's a lot more portable, doesn't drag you down, doesn't call attention to you.

Having two major companies working on the same mount yields a variety of bodies to fit a variety of needs, plus the excellent and small primes now being rolled out. Would any of you Canon owners like a Nikkor 14-24 with full functionality? Bet there's more than one Nikon owner who could put some of that longer L glass to good use, not to mention those beautiful DA* primes we'd all love to use, without having to change systems.

Is M43 as 'good' as the better amateur level dslr's? Probably not, but given current MP/ISO levels, what you lose in going from a large APS DSLR to M43 is largely academic these days, capabilities that are more important in a dpr spec debate than in actual use.

There is one other area that none of the camera makers have explored: a software modifiable body. As in Android, which would allow 3rd party developers to add functionality. It would take a while to build momentum, but imagine the photo tools now found on iOS or Android phones on your camera body, plus having a pad style data module to send your shots straight to cloud storage. The technology is there to do this without impacting operation.

It's not only size, the mirror was the last obstacle in the blossoming of digital.

One can actually see it in m4/3 performance is now following (or almost) Moore's law.
They might even be close to use nanotech, another order of magnitude.

So small size is only a consequence, not a cause. I expect people to buy mirrorless in a couple of yrs. for performance, not for size.

Eliminating moving parts should be a step forward, potentially making the difference between amateur and pro meaningless.

Small size, if you think of the 'always with you' concept, will still be an important feature, but reactiveness could even be better. I like my PL3 for both.

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

Like everyone, I was skeptical of EVF's, having seen the fuzzy ones that went on P&S's. But the VF2 on the Pen changed my mind. It's not quite a really good OVF on a big FF body, but it's close enough that it is not an impediment to composition. And it's amazing that a VF that big and bright can be put on such a small camera.

The 3rd gen just came out, the OLED VF's from Sony. Considering that the EVF has gone from a low cost joke to serious competition to optical VF's in just four years, we've only begun to see what can be done with it.

BobT said:

Keto,
But by "less serious" are you indirectly referring to their smaller sizes?

Click to expand...

Size helps - but it's definitely the way they look as well. Polaroid cameras are the size of small DSLRs too, but people are less bothered by them.

But the size of m4/3 & mirrorless is the point of them. Asking why anyone would by them whilst ignoring size is like asking why anyone would by a ten inch netbook instead of a desktop pc once you ignore the size, since the PC would be cheaper & higher spec. But if you need the portability the netbook is clearly the better option.

The EVF, its apparent size, was for me the start of all this. On a camera diminutive this one could have a bright, big image and WYSIWYG . Funny people most don't realise rthe advantage of composing before hand.

Even the new tone control button is a dream come true. It allows to transfer what you do in Photoshop before you shoot the image . In fact I don't use PS anymore except for very difficult light, and even then...

From this POV small size is only the cherry on the cake. Digital really alllows one all the choices of a painter. The much despised Art filters also allow one such immediacy of choice that one can narrowcast the finished image in a matter of seconds elsewhere.

That's digital, not small size.

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

BobT said:

What appeal would m4/3rds gear have if the advantage of smaller size, and lighter weight was taken out of the picture? Can anyone do a real sales job WITHOUT mentioning or implying the size/weight advantage?

Had a discussion with a friend about this, and I was at a loss as to MFT "pros", once these points were removed from the argument/discussion.

Is MFT (almost, if not) entirely about size?

Click to expand...

m4/3 is about the combination of small size and very nice image quality. No, m4/3 can't compete in ultimate image quality with larger sensor cameras, but it's still very good, and getting better by the year.

BTW, choosing an appropriate camera has always involved compromises. In the film days 35mm couldn't match MF, MF couldn't match 4x5, and so on. So why did anyone shoot 35mm?

I shoot m4/3 because I can carry a kit with similar capabilities to my SLR kit at less than half the weight. The lenses are excellent, small, and the body I use is very fast and capable. The CDAF system is not quite as fast as the PDAF in my SLR, but far more accurate and flexible. I can change focus points simply by touching the LCD, and since it's focusing on the sensor I can be assured that I'll never need to micro-adjust using this system.

--
-------------------------------------------------
No Signature.

Might as well ask if APS-C would offer any benefit over full frame if size didn't matter. Or if there would be any reason to use FF, instead of MF, if there wasn't a size difference.

Your question implies size doesn't matter, which is patently false. I'd much rather carry around a kit of 2 m43 bodies and 3 or 4 m43 lenses than the equivalent in APS-C or FF. Even if just 1 body and lens, m43 is simply more comfortable to carry and use all day long.

If the IQ is good enough for my needs then extra weight gets you nothing but a sore neck, and even "better" IQ is unnecessary. Does m43 do everything? Is it the best system for everything? Of course not. But neither are existing DSLRs.

As for other reasons, the GH2 produces sharper images than most APS-C DSLRs. Just look at the comparisons here at DPR. And live view is far superior than on most (maybe all) DSLRs, as is focus in live view. CDAF is clearly superior in accuracy to PDAF for shooting non-moving subjects. The EVF is vastly superior for shooting in extremely dim light, as you can actually see what you're shooting. The GH2 does video better than all but a very few DSLRs, and those few are vastly more expensive. If you like OOC jpegs, most people feel Oly's are hard to beat. (Personally, I think they're a bit garish; oversaturated and with unrealistic colors, but most people seem to disagree with me.)
--

Bokeh is the aesthetic quality of the blur in out-of-focus areas of an image, or the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light. Bokeh is not the same as depth of field (DOF).

Bob Meyer said:

Might as well ask if APS-C would offer any benefit over full frame if size didn't matter. Or if there would be any reason to use FF, instead of MF, if there wasn't a size difference.

Click to expand...

Bob, this comparison is wrong. APS-C and FF dslrs are based on the same construction and design concepts, using the same mirrors, prisms and so on. There really is little difference between the two beyond the obvious. Mirrorless is inherantly different from a traditional slr, beyond size.

To answer the OP's question, my favorite feature of mirrorless, as others have said, is the WYSIWYG live view experience. I like to see changes as I make them, and for me a live histogram is invaluable.

BobT said:

What appeal would m4/3rds gear have if the advantage of smaller size, and lighter weight was taken out of the picture? Can anyone do a real sales job WITHOUT mentioning or implying the size/weight advantage?

Had a discussion with a friend about this, and I was at a loss as to MFT "pros", once these points were removed from the argument/discussion.

Is MFT (almost, if not) entirely about size?

Click to expand...

That's like saying, "What would be the appeal of FF if it didn't have the advantage of using a larger sensor than APS-C?"

As a long-time DSLR shooter (been shooting with DSLR's since the 10D, and currently shoot with the 40D, 60D, and 5D), I bought an Oly E-PM1 with VF3 viewfinder a couple months ago because I wanted a more compact and lighter camera package than my DSLR gear. If m4/3 was the same size and weight of my DSLR gear, then obviously I would have had no reason to buy my m4/3 gear. But the fact is, it is lighter and more compact (by a significant margin), and that is its appeal.

My view of it is that people still want one camera to do everything.

"I want a smaller high-IQ camera": micro 4:3 arrives, check. But where are my f/2 lenses, since the sensor causes even f/2.8 to be something not f/2.8 in certain aspects. (Insert math here that I cannot comprehend as proof.) OK, here's your fast lenses.. and oops, your system is no longer small. NEX and others are trying to make large-sensor cameras the size of a credit card - but large sensor means large lens, so where's the grip?

We all want a compromise, but to our own standards. I want it too, but have finally 'settled' on a dense pocket-cam with raw and an excellent aps-c camera. Where one won't do the job the other will do nicely. One camera to do all sounds great, but is seldom practical - at least not for me.
--
Jim in Oregon -- http://granitix.blogspot.com
a200 -> G1 -> K-5 & F550